User talk:Pmanderson/Archive 3

]
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2

Advice
Glad to hear you're doing better. If you want my advice of the matter, I'd first say you should take things one point at a time. Changing all of them makes it much more susceptible to a revert because of individual changes. I recognize the location issue is the most important to you (though I think it is for DG as well). So here's how I see it. Disambigs are primarily used for navigational aid between Wikipedia articles, not ideas. So, if the topic is truly that important, the location theory, perhaps you should write an article about it. This would present the theory NPOV-ly with its detractors and supporters. If you are up to that (which is, after all, more important for the encyclopedia than battling over a disambig), and it might need to survive an AfD, then it would need to be in the disambig. Without an article, the case for it's inclusion seems more strained, since it's seems to be overreaching out of POV. Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving the dragon
The procedural concerns are valid (though see my points in the archived discussion) but there was a reasonably solid majority for the form I preferred. By the admin's count the vote went 21/15 in favor of it and after that it was discovered the User:CDThieme had voted with his sockpuppets, bringing the human vote on one side down a few notches.

On the other hand this really wasn't worth spending so much time on and I probably should just have let Jonathunder have his way at the time and spent the time writing articles instead of arguing about spelling. - Haukur 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like many proceedural points, this has substantive implications, however. It has now been demonstrated that someone can unilaterally move an article between the Anglicized and Icelandic spellings, and be fairly sure any appeal to WP:RM will result in no consensus. And remember, this works for moves in both directions.


 * I expect this to happen again. Whatever the merits of the present case, I think this is a bad thing.It means a lot of futile WP:RM discussion, and it will not encourage comity. The way to suppress it is to establish a custom of status quo ante, so that the unilateral move will have no advantage over the proper course: bringing such moves to WP:RM in the first place. Septentrionalis 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point and I too think that Process is Important. But I would really like not to go deeply into this again. Jonathunder and I have since had rapprochement and the next time a debate occurs it will hopefully be in a more cordial atmosphere and I think we will at the very least manage to agree on procedural issues. For the record I don't want to push my views through some bureaucratic or procedural loophole against the will of the community.


 * The procedural issues were discussed at length at the time. If you have the patience for it, and I wouldn't really recommend it since it makes for aggravating reading, most of that discussion can be found in Talk:Níðhöggr/archive1, Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves/Archive_5 and Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive56.


 * Incidentally I'd like to invite you to give your view at Talk:Grœnlendinga saga on the name of the article. All the best. - Haukur 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more link from the procedural discussion Though, as I implied, there are a lot of more fun and productive things to do than wading through this. - Haukur 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

answer
I've answered your question at the bottom of Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Netoholic.Hope that clarifies my position. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel
Thanks yes I read the answer bySeptentrionalis, but as I had not moved the mouse over the name I did not realise that Septentrionalis was an alias for User:Pmanderson. I have not replied to you posting there because I think you have answered all my questions on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I get some back up. I read WP:BIO and R.J. Rummel is non-notable under WP criteria. You know who keeps deleting the tag. --Scaife   (Talk)  [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing for nor against Rummel. I just stumbled across the link, and having, years ago taken some classes and interest in criminology and genocide, thought the figures were suspect. I Googled the fellow's name and he seems, as I said, a LaRouchie type nut. But, more than politics, it seems like the fellow is trying to sidestep history and lay claim to a field of study just by coining a term--whether or not his stats are correct. Obviously, Ultramarine is a colleague of this guy, and will defend him no end. I've too many interests to worry over it, but obviously others feel this Rummel is some sort of plaudits stealer. Thanks for the warning, though. NormalGoddess 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
I just noticed your return. Welcome back! -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've always regretted the decision of registering under my real name, so I changed my username as soon as I found out it was possible. Other than that, I'm trying to figure out a way to keep up with my watchlist... -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that you were back today, again, welcome back - your contribution is always welcome at the Democratic Peace Theory page, which has gone rather quiet recently and even, believe it or not, been labeled as a good article! Robdurbar 13:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, on a mostly unrelated subject, you might want to take a look over this AfD vote on a POV fork. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 03:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine
I have to go on what I feel when I recuse. I can't just go on what seem to be the facts. If I can't make a fair decision I need to recuse. I wrote the original article which contained prominent links to totalitarianism and dictatorship and addressed the massive human rights violations which have resulted from Communist Parties seizing power without democratic support. The current article seems to me pathetically lame, being barely factual and essentially unsourced. I don't think much of Ultramarine as an editor, but not much of his opponents either. There was very good reason to recuse. I was so upset that I created a fork, originally spending my own money on hosting. There is no way I could have been fair to anyone involved. Fred Bauder 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

DPT
Sorry, I wasn't aware that edits on this page were ongoing. Robdurbar 17:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Im not gonna argue over the redirects though I worry as to whether there'll just be another edit war on this article... Robdurbar 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, Im happy for you to make the changes... I must admit I would have created an article 'studies concerning the dpt' rather than 'stuides supporting the dpt', but hey ho :) Robdurbar 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate - you're probably right - but as you can probably tell, I've lost patience with the whole situation (plus Im wasting all time having on List of best-selling music artists which seems to get vandalism on a more-than-daily basis) Robdurbar 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that the DPT article may be a lost cause. It seems as though Ultramarine is insistent in deifying R.J. Rummell to the point that the article has lost its objectivity. If it were up to me the article would be scrapped and redone altogether in order to show both points of view. As I have demostrated on the talk page for DPT, it seems as thought this user is wholly against NPOV in this case, perhaps so much so as to be vandalism? -- Scaife 19:53, 06 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I tagged it for deletion with the understanding that someone will probably take it off essentially negating it. The intent is to get a conversation going. -- Scaife 20:10, 06 February 2006 (UTC)

With reference to what you worte me, I am afraid that the Bremer article that you referenced is unavailable on JSTOR, so it might be awhile before I can collect it at the library. However, on pg 337 of the Bremer article on the DPT page states that although he believes that the dyadic theory has proven that democracy is an important factor in eliminating conflict, more studies should be under taken to understand completely what the mechanism is... BTW this is an awfully obscure reference, what gives? -- Scaife 22:55, 08 February 2006 (UTC)

Chimaera
Thank you, Septentrionalis, for alerting me to the mediation process; I did post quite a detailed comment yesterday at about teatime, but today I see that it is non-existent. Anyway luckily it seems it wasn't crucial to the outcome. TobyJ 15:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Single anon edit VfD pages
Hi. I want to point out that the single anon edit VfD pages which I've nominated for deletion are not real "deletion records", but only appear to be because of their titles. No debate or discussion occurred on any of these pages, so they were probably never linked from the articles or transcluded to the VfD page. Certainly no deletions resulted from them, as no votes were cast. BD2412 T 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that deletions were ever decided on the basis of a single anon edit? With no other commentary, even from the person making the deletion? Actually I do know something about old VfD's - they were made in templates not in Wikipedia space, because the old wiki code would not permit transclusion of pages. These, therefore, were initially created in the wrong space! BD2412  T 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Chaos theory and counting!
Hi, I answered your question there. Lakinekaki 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you responded to me elsewhere, you need not reply here. Septentrionalis 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many dubious afd descisions
That's odd. I don't recall having made many AFD descisions at all, especially not in the last half year or so. I'm puzzeled! What did I do wrong, and how can I fix it in future? Kim Bruning 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, my first, last, and only foray into TFD. The template in question did violate policy, but people opposed its being speedied.I've mostly stayed away from most templates since then, since many templates do not contribute to the encyclopedia directly anyway.


 * Thanks for reminding me of that set of mistakes. I would like to point out that people who try to regularly get things done will also regularly make mistakes, as an unfortunate consequence (I'm not a politician, as you may have noticed :-) . I hope that you're reassured that I do actually learn from my mistakes, and try not to make them again. Kim Bruning 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it hadn't seemed heavy handed, it wouldn't have been a mistake. I finally reached a consensus with the creator of the template, who wasn't at all unhappy with me. What I hadn't reckoned with was the altered perception of admins on wikipedia. Before, admins were just nice users who'd earned some extra buttons (or at least were trusted not to blow up the wiki with them). Now apparently they're demigods (or minor demons). Seeing as I'll just be on the reserve bench by the looks of it, I hope to be able to work on that latter problem in the coming year, if possible. :-) Have a nice evening! Kim Bruning 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oof, it's been a long time for me too. More than 3 months for sure. If I come across it, I'll drop you a line. Kim Bruning 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, found here. Actually one of 2 situations might come to mind: either: Conlangs/Votes or Template:Vote_bar. The latter being kept is a little tricky, as it needs to be watched carefully. :-/ Kim Bruning 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman provinces
In most cases I agree with your concerns about long running names and standardisation.However, there is precedent for standardised place-names as with cities in the USA. And the Ottoman subdivisions present particular problems.First, there is the case of these province names overlapping with different provinces of other countries of the same name especially those in present-day Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. For example, the Ottoman Basra, Baghdad, or Mosul provinces were radically different beasts from the current Iraqi “provinces” and some of the provinces are now their own country (Egypt, Cyprus).I would agree with the use of vilayet but most of the provinces were eyalets before the mid-19th century and some used other terms (e.g. khedivate) as well as the informal term “pashaluk.”See Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire for details. LuiKhuntek 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

About Özi Province, you say that “calling something that included Bessarabia "Silistra Province" is just wrong.”I’m not sure what this means but the Ottoman Silistra eyalet existed for over 100 years and included the Black Sea coast from Istanbul to present-day Ukraine and at times stretched all the way to Vidin.Only one source calls it only Özi (Imber) and others explain that Özi was an alternate name for Sislistra.Özi could not have been used consistently since the Ochakiv (Özi) area was often outside of the eyalet system.Maps of this can bee seen at:

  

or in Paul Robert Magocsi’s Historical Atlas of Central Europe. (2nd ed.)

Donald Edgar Pitcher’s An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire has both maps and a text explanation of this (p.128) that cites original Ottoman records. LuiKhuntek 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

“Province of Timişoara” doesn’t use a Turkish/Romanian hybrid – it’s the current English form.None of the other provinces use the Turkish form for areas now outside of Turkey.(e.g. Bosnia, Herzegovina, Egypt, Baghdad)(And it’s no more anachronistic than Serbia for Servia, Kosovo for Kossovo, Rumelia for Roumelia, Romania for Rumania, etc.) LuiKhuntek 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Economics of fascism
That article is a POV mess from start to finish. It relies almost exclusively on libertarian authors and is slanted in their favour. The comparisons with the New Deal are just the worst part of it. But I've learned my lesson from the whole Ultramarine affair. This time, I'll look for a large collection of sources first, then go in to fix the article. Expert POV pushers, like Ultramarine and RJII (the author of the Economics of fascism article) use similar strategies: They support their POV by selectively quoting the sources that agree with them, and then arrogantly claim that their POV is widely accepted opinion (witness RJII saying in the Talk page that most historians believe the New Deal was economic fascism). Thus, the best way to counter them is to amass a large number of sources that oppose their POV. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting on Eyalet of Temeşvar
I added another rename proposal to Talk:Eyalet of Temeşvar that preserves the Turkish name: Eyalet of Temeşvar → Temeşvar Province, Ottoman Empire

Please (re-)vote if you care to.

LuiKhuntek 07:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sale of the Daily Express
I have added some thoughts on the date of transfer of the Express to Beaverbrook on Talk:Cyril Arthur Pearson. Perhaps you'd like to take a look when you get the chance. Regards, BillC 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Menander
Hi, I saw that you are trying to update the article of Menander the greek commediographer, I'm very interested about greek litterature in general and drama specifically, I would if you'd like expand a bit Menander, i wrote some on menander talk things that I will do if you agree. Thanks for any of your replies. SalutemFilippus dat--Philx 13:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
 * I have expressed my opinions on the article talk page, if you agree, i'll start that section. --Philx 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not the best possible for the reader, although including English translations in a bibliography should make that all right. But why not write the article for the Italian wikipedia first, and then translate, which should save both of us a bit of work, and show what you have in mind? Septentrionalis 19:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if i bother you, but honestly, I can't get, your point, should I translate the critics of italian wiki because critics is present there? So why not start a new section in en wiki adding italian soureces and english ones? Thank you for any reply --Philx 20:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Phil, I think he means, why dont you translate the work into Italian first on the Italian Wiki, then translate that into English and move it over here to the En Wiki. If you want me to help on this part, plz let me know. Ciao for now--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi septemtrionalis, I understood your point of view about the sources, i'm trying to recover the soureces in it wiki, when i'm done with the sourcing and wikification i'll start to translate, Regards. --Philx 13:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you!  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of the JAO
Hi, Pmanderson!Thanks for moving the JAO divisions article to the "the"-version; that was totally my mistake.I was wondering, however, if you would be able to help me resolve another problem of the similar kind.I am not completely sure if a definite article is needed with the names of Russian krais and oblasts (such as Primorsky Krai or Tambov Oblast).On one hand, it should be used (e.g., in the French Republic&rarr;in the Primorsky Krai); on the other hand  the Primorsky Krai sounds quite silly (at least to me, but I am not a native speaker).I was unable to find any definitive guidelines regarding this, and Google returns both variants (with most of the hits being from the English-language Russian websites anyway).Any advice will be much appreciated.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It has generally been accepted to use "krai" and "oblast" instead of "territory" and "province".This is partly because there are no established English translations of both words ("territory" and "province" are by far the most commonly used equivalents, but they are not by any means standard), and partly because in reverse translation "territory" corresponds to Russian "территория" (territoriya), and "province"&mdash;to Russian "провинция" (provintsiya), which are separate words on their own, both of which have subsets of meanings competely unrelated to the meanings of the words "krai" and "oblast".Provintsiyas also used to be administrative subdivisions of Russia in the past, which certainly does not help matters as far as translation of modern terms is concerned.
 * As for the examples, here are some:
 * A common construction: the government of (the?) Primorsky Krai, (the?) Tambov Oblast, (the?) Belgorod Oblast... (a complete list of Russian federal subjects can be found here).
 * Standard article intro: (the?) Lipetsk Oblast is a federal subject of Russia (an oblast)...
 * a fairly common sentence construction: This oblast borders the Republic of Mordovia, (the?) Vladimir Oblast, (the?) Tula Oblast,...Here, "the" before the "Republic of Mordovia" is obvious, as it would be if constructs like "the Oblast of Tula" and "the Krai of Khabarovsk" (cmp. with "the state of California") existed (they do not).
 * An interesting part is that when "oblast" is replaced with "province" (and "krai"&mdash;with "territory"), the definite article sounds a lot more natural: the Tula Province,the Stavropol Territory, but it still probably is incorrect (cmp. with the Wisconsin State, which sounds plain wrong unless it's a part of a construct such as the Wisconsin State Lottery).
 * I don't know if these examples are going to help, but if you could look into this, I'd certainly much appreciate it.My English isn't too shabby, but little things like this are what separates native and non-native speakers, and articles have long been a personal weakness of my own.I am somewhat afraid, however, that this may require help of a professional English teacher/educator.Reference materials certainly have not been of much help so far.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Democratic_peace_theory
Tnx for letting me know - I'll take a look and surely comment in a few hours!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Stark
Could you please help to write a biography. I wrote him an e-mail and requested him to release a picture of him to be released under GDFL. Andries 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sig
Why does your signature read a different name? Just wondering. Infinity0 talk 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aristarchus
Thank you for taking the time to answer each and every point. If I ever stumble on a serious argument in wikipedia, I will seriously consider asking for your assistance (with the danger of not agreeing with my point - for sure).--FocalPoint 10:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson/David Dailey
Done. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll speedy it in 24 hours. Septentrionalis 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
The administrators' noticeboard is somewhat outside my scope as mediator, you're basically requesting outside assistence and advice when you post there.

However, since no one has seen reason to respond and it's already halfway up the page, I've simply removed that section. I take it it shan't be missed.:-) Kim Bruning 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's stored in the page history, just before 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Kim Bruning 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:The Sejm and most wars.
If I find any references, you'll be the first to know, but my search is drawing blanks here. Nonetheless most is correct, as Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) is a good example of a war which was not voted down by Sejm.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names
Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination).Regards--AYArktos 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Rummel
Actually he worked on the Correlates of War project with Singer. He took the observations that Singer had made and then codified it into what constitutes a liberal democracy and war, as well as expanding the time frame. I included the references, and this is how I read it. If you read it differently, let's change it. --Scaife 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic peace theory
As you probably already know, I archived the talk page because it was a bit too cumbersome and most of the converstaions were dead. Well you know who has decided to crusade about it. Let me know what you feel about it, I think that you can just make a link to the prior discussion or start another one. I wasn't starting anything but he sure thinks I was "gaming the system". I hate Poindexter... BTW I am not getting on this thing for awhile, I am really irritated about this. --Scaife 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? You missed alot of fun last night. Look at my talk page I saved some of it. Cheers! --Scaife 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of changed my mind. I was seriously getting irritated last night before Mr. West got on and supported me. Other sections were deleted, but if you look throught the history he was threatening me, browbeating me and making the most inane arguments over semantics. I emplored with him over the span of 4 hours to do exactly what you said. I even returned some of the other articles to compromise, but he could not be satisfied. I really only archived those sections that had either been dead for 7 days or were resolved. If he keeps up, I might initiate another arbitration. This behavior is very disruptive and I am tired of being accused of conspiring against him all the time. I propose that the DPT article is merged with R.J. Rummell and then I can turn my attention to Mother Teresa. :D --Scaife 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So now, DPT has lost its second mediator: UM refused the first, and drove off the second.What do we do now?I mean, we were actually getting somewhere for a while on producing an article.I suppose it couldn't last.Robert A.West (Talk) 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comments on User Talk:ScaifeRobert A.West (Talk) 16:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Private Message
Look at your alumni account for an urgent private message.See also Margaret Garner.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Faucounau
Hi, I noticed you got involved with this guy at Phaistos disk and Pelasgians who seems so addicted to that Faucounau "Proto-Ionian theory". I feel I have to warn you, in all likelihood this is one of the lesser-desired spillovers from Usenet. There is strong evidence that this anon user is none other than the Usenet persona "grapheus", who in turn is believed by most people on Usenet to be none other than Faucounau himself. Look here: Stylistic comparison between grapheus and Faucounau, and you'll probably recognize a pattern. If my suspicion is correct, there's little hope for him to ever produce anything useful, "grapheus" is an absolutely fanatic, inveterate, single-minded POV-pushing crank. Lukas (T. 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My first requested undeletion! The last version before its second deletion is at User:Pmanderson/proto-Ionian theory as requested :-) - David Gerard 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that User 80.90.57.154 is the same as grapheus. At 15 February 2006 80.90.57.154 was posting with the IP 80.90.39.81 Phaistos_Disc:history. The same did grapheus at groups.google.com. Be warned! Gbrunner 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to your question about the linguistic side: I don't know much about it, but there was indeed a long debate about the pre-history of the dialectal divisions between the Greek dialects. There's a fairly accessible summary in the first chapter of G. Horrocks, Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, 1997, ISBN 0-582-03191-5. IIRC, it's much more complex than a simple opposition between a "Risch-Chadwick" and a "Kretschmerian" theory. Risch and Chadwick were prominent participants in that debate, that much is true. The undeleted article is basically correct in describing the "Proto-Ionian theory" as a fringe thing mostly unheard of outside the internet activities of "grapheus"/Faucounau. BTW, that style comparison I quoted wasn't mine, but I still think it's brilliant, and thanks to Gbrunner for providing that further piece of evidence. Lukas (T. 08:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Phaistos disk, especially actually reading Faure -- I had been putting off going to the library....At this point, it would seem that the best policy is simply to declare consensus and ignore anon. --Macrakis 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine
Haha.Yeah, he appear to be a typical troll. I'm currently involved in several important edit so I don't have time to engae him.I might come back when I have time. Best way is to bait him to violate something obviously out of NPOV. See ya. ~
 * I cannot agree, especially with the personal attack [deleted]. Ultramarine is usually editing in good faith; he merely regards all means as justified when Proclaiming the Rummellite Truth.Septentrionalis 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice your reply. He certainly isn't a vandal troll. But his profile page make it clear that he revel in edit war. And his type is very annoying. My external link was meant to be humourous. For one, we are both assuming that he is a male and not old.It's must be a hormone thing. FWBOarticle

Phaistos Disc
I have seen your last changes at Phaistos Disc. Did you really want to do this work for every attempt? svoronan lists 50 to 60 attempts until now. I fear we will get a new article at the end of this hard work.

(BTW for Faucounau you will need: A-side first; reading inwards; A-side begins κάς ΄Άργοιο παίς...) Kadmos 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at my sandbox. Feel free to edit. Kadmos 03:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: H. --> S. --> F.: To say "based upon" is maybe to strong. But see yourself:

S. starts: "Last Jaunaury (1911) there appeared in Harpers Magazine an essay by Proffesor Hempl, ... we who follow follow reap the advantage of his labour, ..."

F. starts his book from 1999: "A la mémoire de Florence Melian Stawell qui pressentit, la première, la solution de l'énigme."

Between two of them there is only a subset of symbols with a similar meaning/interpretation. For instance H. and S. start in A I with Α/α. But such similarities exist. Never mind, it's not really important. Kadmos 05:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have requested for unprotection. (I use this account only for the battle with our anon. Therefore the disclaimer at my talk page.) Kadmos 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems that I was to late. Sorry for that. Kadmos 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Peace Theroy SHE
To be honest, part of my motivation for deleting was to remove the article from my watchlist. I don't feel I have the requesit expertise in the DPT to get invovled - in hindsight my contributions to the page were probably a bit 'clueless newbie'-esque, and I'm happy to be away from the whole thing. Robdurbar 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)
Regarding the AfD for Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples): could you please provide a link to the previous AfD? Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Knight
What do you by idealogy, when you mentioned it on the Knight article discussion page? Why do you say that?Zmmz 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WHEELER
I noticed you reverted WHEELER at History of Sparta. He has been adding links to his highly original essays to a number of ourarticles. Due you think you could have a word with him? He seems convinced that I am the embodiment of evil, so my messages have not had much effect. - SimonP 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes I see that you two have your own history. Don't worry then, if this continues I'll leave a note at AN/I and try to get a neutral party that way. - SimonP 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Aeneas
Actually, while I agreee that the legend of Aeneas as a founding legend doesn't have a great deal to do with the objective history of the Roman republic, it is important in that it ties the Roman culture into the Hellenistic one - at least in the minds of the Romans.

Were the article The History of the Roman Republic (which will probably be calving off soon), just about the history, then I'd agree. However, since the article is supposed to be an overview of all aspects of the Roman republic, tying it all together is imporant.

I realize that the section on Roman culture hasn't been written for that article yet, but the hooks are there to tie in the sections when someone finally gets around to it. - Vedexent 21:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you seem to have an aversion to mentioning the Roman's view of their own historical origins? More to the point, why take out any reference to the founding of the city at all? Histories start at the beginning. If you don't like how a section is written up, then edit it for valid reasons. Ripping out relavant sections completely is not a good thing. If you want to discuss the origins and founding of the city in different terms - say 1/2 archeological 1/2 mythical - that I can see. Blanking that part and pulling the Monarchy period out of some nebulous "once upon a time" seems sloppy to say the least. If there is no certainty, you place the various contending viewpoints together, you don't rip the issue out. - Vedexent 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only say that I agree with Vedexent. You are simply ripping out stuff that is important, if one is to understand the view the ancient roman had about themselves, without giving any good reasons. Flamarande 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop
I have just done a massive refactoring of Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to
 * remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
 * make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop(Again)
I have just readded three proposed remedies to Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed.I have also refactored these comments to


 * remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
 * make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch(talk) 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman Republic
Did you read Talk:Roman_Republic? You didn't respond, you just reverted the change without comment. - Vedexent 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, you're right - I apologize, I incorrectly characterized the change. It's also been suggested that the founding myth be migrated in the Roman Kingdom article, which leaves a single myth, in the Roman Republic, which probably could get rolled back into the article as a single sentence and a template. Hasn't happened yet, but that would cut out two sub-section paragraphs and add only a sentence and a link - Vedexent 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point was that discussions of the Roman founding myths can be moved offpage. I recognize that an in-depth discussion of the founding or monarchy period doesn't belong on the Republc page - I just think it's useful to a "new reader" to have a brief synopisis of "what has come before this point". Unfortunatly, with Roman history it's hard to talk about without referencing "myth-history".

Personally, I think the existence of the Founding of Rome article is a godsend, as it allows a brief 1-2 paragraph mention of the founding, and a link to a more in depth article for those that are interested. I havn't seen a similar article for the overthrow of the monarchy, just the Lucretia article, which isn't really history. The Roman Kingdom article could be such an article if I had a section on the mythical overthrow - or perhaps a totally new article Fall of the Roman Monarchy in the same vein as the Founding of Rome article?

In the larger scope of things I think the article can be "pared down" by migrating much of the historical material to a History of the Roman Empire article, and having the 4.x level topics (in the numbered TOC) summeraized by a paragraph or two, with links to the appropriate section of the History article.- Vedexent 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenedos and Imbros
Thanks for the heads-up on that.I didn't have the page on my watchlist, so hadn't noticed that the subject was being reopened. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Put in my $.02.Robert A.West (Talk) 07:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Curiously, Pennsylvanien is a redirect to Pennsylvania.This is the opposite of what I would expect, and I find it mildly irritating.The article appears to be a clone of the English-language article, which may explain it.Robert A.West (Talk) 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

sock- or meatpuppetry
It remains a hypothesis, but I think it is safe to say that 80.90=grapheus is J. Faucounau. (see here). this reply, in a disconcertingly familiar attempt at sarcasm
 * grapheus has HELPED J.F. to write his (very rare!) papers in English

Now considering Rose-mary, I have no doubt that this user would not hesitate a second to make up cock-and-bull stories as he goes along, and for this reason it seems most probable that he is, after all, J.F. If he isn't, he as at least admitted that he and Faucounau are "old friends" and that he "helped him write his papers in English", so that he would at the very least qualify as a meatpuppet. French academia is a bitch. The top bananas go berserk if anyone questions their dignity, and the amateurs do their best to imitate them. Grapheus has been keeping going on usenet for years without getting tired of his game. Faucounau has gone and sued people about their statements towards grapheus on usenet. We are dealing with a beautiful specimen of the proverbial crank :) dab (&#5839;) 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * loyal niece, maybe :) I see no indication that Faucounau's Greek is above a good highschool level, though. He emphasizes the ā to ē thing (which is explained with the first declension in any introductory Greek grammar). He shows no appreciation of how implausible his linguistic claims are. His decipherment is heavily based on Homeric Greek. I am sure that any good crossword solver can come up with a reading of the Phaistos disk in any language, given a decade or two of fiddling with syllable values. Faucounau happened to start out with the Homeric lexicon, had he started out with Biblical Hebrew, he would now be pestering us with a "Proto-Phoenician" theory. If he is an amateur linguist, he is quite amateurish. I think grapheus' apparent lack of understanding of JF is more a problem of his English. We should try editing the French article, we would then soon find out about his ability to represent JF in French :) dab (&#5839;) 21:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * well, of course, it is perfectly possible that the Disk language is Greek, and that there was a Mycenaean-Ionic division already at the time the Disk was made. It's just that JF's work doesn't go a tiny step towards proving anything of the sort. I mean, 3000 BC, constellations, Pelasgians and the Phaistos Disk, give me a break, it sounds like a parody of bad scholarship :oD dab (&#5839;) 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought nobody in his right mind would endorse this stuff in REG :) "Sea-faring Ionians in 1500 BC", well, we don't need M Faucounau to tell us that, it would be pretty much the natural assumption that "Southern" dialects began to split around that time. If they didn't immigrate as distinct dialect groups in the first place. In 2000 BC that is, there is nothing that would point to a 3000 BC immigration. After a separation of 2000 years, the language would have diverged so far from Doric that it would not have been readily recognizable as cognate. Jesus Christ, I have JF's 2001 book in front of me, it's a joke, all he does is re-assert over and over again that "all evidence points to Proto-Ionians". Except that his assertions are the only thing that do... dab (&#5839;) 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * right you are, I'm off to bed. I think I am wasting so much time here because I am secretly attracted by the cranky mindset, it has a something je ne sais quoi, absurd andsurrealist, essentially human. There is a raving kook in each of us I am sure... regards, dab (&#5839;) 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Otherarticles
A useless template (IMO, of course) needs not be replaced. Nothing in the TfD guidelines states that a template can only be replaced, never deleted. Note criteria #1, and hey, even #2, it's redundant to the category list. --Golbez 20:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then defend it as well as you are with me. Convince the community it's needed. --Golbez 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack and very serious unsourced accusations against a living person
Septentrionalis, you seem to want that Wikipedia should contain personal attacks and very serious unsourced accusations against a living person. Please do not continue with this. Ultramarine 15:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider
First, you are correct about Finland, but your blind revert was completely unwarranted. In the light of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, it is totally wrong to imply any continuity of the Universal suffrage in Germany and Nazi-occupied lands. BTW, how did Finland fared Universal suffrage-wise during WW2? Please edit the article accordingly before I or someone else does. Second, your comment shows dire need to [re]read WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep RFC
''I am close to neutral on the Userbox issue, but I agree that MarkSweep should, at a minimum, be dequired to reapply for adminship. I don't see why this isn't an Arb case; I've just been through one and don't want the trobule, or I'd statrt one. Let me know if I can help. Septentrionalis 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)''
 * It certainly looks like that will be necessary - under the constraints of WP:AGF I don't think taking either of the other two to ArbCom would be of any value (especially since DocGlasgow has made a genuine attempt to create a consensus-based policy that will solve the whole userboxes thing, and 'dispute resolution' is the point of this process after all), but I would welcome an RFAr on MarkSweep, especially since he's still doing it Cynical 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Ionians
I did read JF; I deserve to have some fun out of it.
 * my thoughts exactly :) good job dab (&#5839;) 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Myson of Chen AfD
Hi Septentrionalis, I hope you don't mind my opposing your AfD nomination. It seems to be swinging "my" way right now. I'm a rather strong inclusionist when it comes to obscure classical topics (just look at Articles for deletion/Brykhon); when all those classical and Byzantine writers and copyists and compilers took so much trouble saving some obscure name from "the ever-flowing stream of time that washes away everything into the abysses of oblivion", then I think it only fair if Wikipedia does what it can to stem the tide! :-) Just out of curiosity, I don't really know anything about this Wikinfo vs Wikipedia thing, could you explain a bit why you felt taking over the article from Wikinfo was a bad idea? Cheers, Lukas (T. 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. I can see your point now. However, I don't really think it's necessary to worry that much about this copyright notice. Why should material taken over from a GFDL-released foreign project (by the same author who created it on both sites) be treated any differently from material created under GFDL by any other editor within Wikipedia? If I write an article and my text later gets completely superceded, then my previous authorship is no longer visible, but still recoverable and credited in the page history. Why should the same not be sufficient for the Wikinfo authorship, which (as far as I understand) has exactly the same legal status? Just as an example, anybody could at any time have gone and boldlyredirected the page, to Seven Sages of Greece or anywhere else. That way, the copyright notice would have been made invisible too. Would anyone argue that the presence of the copyright notice would have made normal acts of editing such as redirecting illegal? - And in the worst of cases, if it really can't be done, the reference can still be reworded to follow similar license templates (e.g. Template:FOLDOC), and placed in such a way as to make clear it's not really a source reference in the sense of "verifiable source" etc. Lukas (T. 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Hi, I responded to your comment on AUM.Can you reply there? — Omegatron 15:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dechristianization of France
Okay, no big deal; would you like it to not be included in the template, or the template to not be included in the article, or both? Tom Harrison Talk 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Æ as an abreviation on tombstones
Thank you for your addition to the article on Æ. In further research I have found many tombstones with the inscription "Ætatis" and I have not found any with the inscription "Ætate" or "Ætate sua". Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the abreviation (which I have also seen as "Æt.") is for Ætatis? I'm afraid my Latin is non-existent.Are these simply different forms of the same word?

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you.--Cyde Weys 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA
If you'd be interested, I'll nominate you. I like your work, especially on Phaistos Disc. Cheers! --Scaife   (Talk)   Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in adminship, but I'd rather not be nominated immediately by an ally in an active dispute. Scaife, please ask again in a couple weeks. Septentrionalis 22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Scaife   <font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Red">(Talk)  [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] <font color="Black">Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Words of Wisdom
I found this on the WoW page:

When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you. —khaosworks

Can you think of anyone who needs these words? Robert A.West (Talk) 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Robert heinlein and Philosophical novels
(d'oh! posted a reply on something to the wrong user talk page! sigh.) Heh! It was more things like "Stranger in a strange land" I was thinking of, where one of the characters is basically Heinlein ranting ("Time enough for love" is another one that does that :) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned cats conundrum
Hi.As a party who contributed to the discussion on the Orphaned China cats recently, I wanted to see if I could get a comment from you at the unresolved discussion.I don't want to see this matter tossed back into the limbo of no consensus, so please vote under Agree with proposal or Disagree with proposal with the numbering and we'll see if this can be resolved.Thanks very much for your continued patience. --Syrthiss 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, Again
I found this article and it sounds like him. Its in English but from a Swede, which is in keeping of my theory about him. Writing sytle is very similar. Let me know what you think? --<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black">Scaife   <font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Red">(Talk)   <font color="Black">Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Neoliberalism in international relations
I could use some help here. There is a user that is strying to start a revert war over whether or not neoliberalism is a "realist" theory or not. It clearly isn't and I spelled that out. They do share a state-central view of IR, however neoliberalism does not intrinsically state that the system is anarchic, which is the major defining charachteristic of Realism. --<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black">Scaife   <font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Red">(Talk)   <font color="Black">Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Imbros and Tenedos
I have copyedited Imbros and Tenedos.Consistently with my belief that a lot of non-idiomatic english gets mistaken for NPOV violations, I think that the NPOV tag can now be removed.Your advice would be welcome.Robert A.West (Talk) 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Greeks
Please take a look at Talk:Greeks.I'm afraid the essentialist concept of ethnic identity is very stubborn....Your thoughts and contributions would be welcome. --Macrakis 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Foreign impact on the Greeks
Better talk to u here,cause i think that we are getting off the main subject in Talk:Greeks.i do not think that we should mention the obvious:that there is no pure nation in the world!,by listing all the foreign settlements in greece.i also have doubts about the necessity of the mythological references in the beginning of the article.if we just say that numerous invaders passed from greece and that they have generally contributed,would be clear enough.i do not know were u are from,but lets say that u are English...would u think it is necessary to mention who founded the cities and who lived there during a 3000 year history?this should be a subject of the respective city articles,or of the history of the country.by refering to it on the people's article,in the way that was in the Greeks(directly claiming that non-greeks had a huge impact)we deliberately underestimate the continuity of the people.i do not know if i made myself clear enough...:)--Hectorian 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many differences between the two articles.the one includes genetic studies,the other does not.the one has a section 'contribution to humanity',but the other doesn't (and it would be very interesting to make such a section in the Greeks article...).i am not saying not to mention that the modern greeks have mixed with other people as well,i am saying not to provoke the undisputed continuity.and if someone may think that what i am saying is racist or something,i can be even more "liberal and free-minded" and underline the greek contribution to the whole area from Portugal to India and from Hungary to Sudan...This is not how things happened...Everything has to be placed in its order.--Hectorian 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And if i have not made myself clear again,let me give u an example of what i mean.if i editted in Scottish people something like that: some academians believe that the Scottish people are a celtic nation,but this view excludes the large numbers of Flemish that immigrated in the region,i am provoking the celtic origins of the Scots and i am giving to an ethnic group(the flemish in this case)more impact than they really had(btw,that article is disputed,perhaps for such reasons).this is what i do not wanna see in Greeks...underline the non-greek impact and get the page locked.Regards--Hectorian 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Felony Murder
Apparently Guyora Binder is male.Fitting I should user him as a source since he is Class of '77. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyril Arthur Pearson
Good piece of research. Assuming that you find concurring evidence from AJP Taylor, we'll need to update the referring articles as well, such as Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook. --BillC 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Greeks (2)
Hi, I think I'm with NikoSilver on this latest bout of reversals over Greeks. Much as I don't want to discourage Byz, I think his version isn't yet mature enough for insertion under the present hot climate. It'll be better to prepare one good version that is so immaculately sourced from the start that nobody can easily attack it. And I mean not just mentioning sources on the talk page, but really littering the text with footnotes... (see what I once had to do to Arvanitic language if you want a really really bad example of how to stop POV warrers ;-) ) Hint: I like the new &lt;ref&gt; functionality for this purpose -- Thanks for your heroic efforts though! --Lukas (T. 20:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting together a group of right-thinking editors to battle a lone crank, possibly with a lukewarm supporter, is a viable strategy.However, I'm afraid that it just leads to endless edit-warring on pages like Greeks.If we can find five editors willing to spend full time reverting, other editors can find five to revert to their favorite version.When I have a little more time, I plan to put together a mini-anthology of comments by scholars of modern Greek national identity (historians, political scientists, anthropologists) which can form part of the collection of diverse points of view making up NPOV.I have already put some of the references in the bibliography.This will clearly be based on modern, scholarly, secondary sources. --Macrakis 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

DPT Tags
I say get rid of them, we can work out the details of removing the perponderance of Ray as we move along. Cheers! --<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Blood Red">Scaife   <font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black">(Talk)   23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine Reloaded
It looks as if you have been in confrontations with Ultramarine before yourself. He may very well be the most active and argumentative biased editor of political articles on the wikipedia. Many editors contacted me during my "case against ultramarine" userpage compaign (until i deleted it because of admin pressures). While my political views differ from his, i did take Jimbo Wales advice and remove my political userboxes and I have not been one to go on wild editing rampages to advance my agenda on wikipedia, I spend most my time editing social science, matrix, and videogame articles. But I have quite a few soviet and political related articles on my watchlist specifically for policing ultramarine. I don't have any questions or requests to make of you, I simply wanted to express my appreciation for your honesty and effort to keep the Liberal democracy article clean and as balanced as possible. Viva Wikipedia. Solidusspriggan 03:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy disambiguations
Hi there. I noticed you put a link to Ptolemy back in the disambiguation text at the top of Ptolemy I Soter, and I was wondering if you could point me somewhere where the style of these disambiguation phrases are discussed? My feeling is that if someone types Ptolemy in the search box, they arrive at Ptolemy, and so links to Ptolemy from other articles are not needed. I always like to see the disambiguation phrases kept to a bare minimum, as I feel they can be distracting. The most comprehensive disambiguation text should, IMO, be at Ptolemy.

On a related matter, I spent some time recently tidying up a disambiguation tangle that I discovered. Namely that Ptolemaic was a redirect to Ptolemaic dynasty. After clicking on "What links here" I discovered that several of the 43 links were in fact to do with Ptolemy (mainly needing to be redirected to Ptolemaic system. I gradually worked through the list, redoing the Ptolemaic links to point at either Ptolemaic dynasty, Ptolemaic system or Ptolemy. I then changed the redirect to a disambiguation page. I wanted to get some feedback on whether that page looks OK, and was wondering if you would have time to comment? If not, I'll raise this on the talk pages, but I wanted to get some individual feedback first. Carcharoth 23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I didn't quite get what you meant by this though: "Somewhere there is a link to Ptolemy which some bot will disambiguate -wrongly- to Ptolemy by this time next month, or next year." Do you have a specific bot in mind, or are you talking generally? Carcharoth 23:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

More Ptolemy stuff
While going through all that Ptolemaic stuff, I had the chance to ponder on the distinction between Ptolemiac dynasty and Ptolemaic period (I suppose technically the period started when the Ptolemy who would later be known as Ptolemy I Soter became ruler of Eygpt in 323 BC, but the dynasty started when he took the title of King in 305 BC). There is also a distinction between the dynasty (the people) and the period (historical era) and the kingdom/empire, though it all these distinctions start to blur at some point. Also, I saw that History of Greek and Roman Egypt is fairly similar to Ptolemaic dynasty, but obviously covers the Roman period as well. I saw that Ptolemaic Empire redirects there. Is there a subtle distinction I am missing here that would explain why Ptolemiac Empire shouldn't redirect to the dynasty page instead? Carcharoth 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I've got a nasty feeling that many of the links pointing at Ptolemaic dynasty, including the several that I recently redirected there myself, should be pointing at a history page like Ptolemaic empire. Before looking through the long list of "What links here" for Ptolemaic dynasty (and similar pages), I want to be clear what people can mean by the phrases they are using. Of course, they might be using the phrases incorrectly, but that is part of the challenge! I did also see several references to Legu-what's-its-name, but obviously don't really understand that... Carcharoth 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it! There is a Lagids page that redirects to Ptolemaic dynasty. Carcharoth 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help and advice on the Ptolemy stuff. I'll do a bit more tidying up, and then I think I will take your advice and leave the more subtle stuff for others to clear up - maybe leaving messages on a few talk pages to alert people. My main interest is the science pages concerning Ptolemy, but it has been interesting finding out about all these other Ptolemies! Do you know if Ptolemy was related at all, or was it just a common name? Carcharoth 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing I have realised from all this, even though we don't know for sure whether Ptolemy was descended from the Ptolemies, is that, in their own particular areas, Ptolemy and the Ptolemies are the most famous examples of Ptolemies. Historians and philosophers of science instantly think of Ptolemy and the system that held sway for centuries. Classical scholars and historians should think of both, maybe edging more towards the dynastic Ptolemies. Egyptologists would instantly think of the dynastic Ptolemies. And as for the man on the street, I would say that Ptolemy the astronomer is the most famous of the lot. At least that seems to be the verdict handed down by Wikipedia when you type in Ptolemy to the search engine! Though I guess lots of people type Ptolomy... (I like the way the "What links here" from spelling redirects like Ptolomy can show you how commonly editors do type Ptolomy) :-) Carcharoth 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The source of most POV articles on wikipedia: Asymmetric controversy
I believe I have made an important discovery regarding the reason why some articles are chronically biased. Most of them are articles on what I call asymmetric controversies.

An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it. Examples are numerous. Gun politics is biased in favor of pro-gun views because pro-gun activists care about it a lot more than gun control advocates. Market economy has a heavy libertarian bias. And, of course, democratic peace theory has fanatical supporters but no fanatical opponents. Paradoxically, any idea widely considered too insane to be criticized will have a favorable article written about it, since its advocates are fanatical about the issue while its opponents consider it too crazy to bother with. Keep in mind that what makes these controversies asymmetric is not the number of people on each side, but the intensity with which they defend their POV. This is a systemic problem on wikipedia, and I think it's time the community started doing something about it, like creating a special project to police asymmetric controversies. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 06:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of the dispute resolution process. It has proven chronically unable to deal with problem users efficiently (and I don't mean Ultramarine or other people who are opinionated but reasonable - I mean real problem users, who would be labeled as flame warriors and banned within days on a messageboard, but manage to survive for months here). -- Nikodemos 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What you don't know about that real problem user is that he had been the subject of a RfAr, considered for a one year ban, eventually put on parole with no immediate punishment, and later blocked for a month some 5 weeks after the RfAr - 5 weeks that were completely wasted, because the RfAr had no effect whatsoever on his behavior and he should have been banned as soon as the case was closed. What I am saying, essentially, is that in my experience dispute resolution has been too lax with users who obviously have no intent to reform. But I digress from the original point of this whole conversation. Even if you disagree about our rules being too lax, what would you say about a possible wikiproject to go out there and identify possible asymmetric controversies in order to redress the balance? -- Nikodemos 17:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An eventualist! Quick! Burn the heretic! Immediately! :) On a serious note, I agree that some form of subject-area WikiProjects are the answer. However, POV-specific WikiProjects must be avoided at all costs (for example, we should have a general "Ideologies WikiProject" rather than, say, a "Libertarianism WikiProject").


 * A related problem is what I call unbalanced citations - creating a well-sourced article that only cites sources from one side of the controversy, under the excuse that "it's not my responsibility to write for the enemy" (yes, I'm talking about - well, you know who you are). This is technically not against NPOV, though I believe it should be. At the very least, we should have a specific warning tag that should be placed on pages with unbalanced citations as long as the imbalance remains. Something like "This article overwhelmingly presents the views of one side in a controversy. Please be aware that there may be opposing arguments which are currently not covered". The criterion for using the tag should be the ratio between the number of citations for one side and the number of citations for the other. If it's above, say, 3/4, then we use the tag. -- Nikodemos 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side note, did you get my recent email? -- Nikodemos 06:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable
Yes &mdash; I can't decide whether its more depressing than amusing or vice versa.One of the people involved, User:Kagan the Barbarian, has sailed very close to the wind (to say the least). --Mel Etitis( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Game
I'm just dedicated to stamp out a stupid game which is completely pointless and wastes peoples' time every time they think of it. :P

The redness of my sig is slightly different shade of red than non-talk page people. Besides, being treated like a newbie gives me the upper hand in debates. ;) -- infinity  0  18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Elis etc.
There are several more "badly" named categories, see Category:Prefectures of Greece. For instance Aitolia-Acarnania (Aetolia-Acarnania), Prefecture of Chalkidiki (Chalcidice), The Cyclades (Cyclades), The Dodecanese (Dodecanese), Phokida (Phocis) and Viotia (Boeotia). Apart from Boeotia, none of the "proper" categories exist. Viotia is empty now. Markussep 19:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it, I'm not very annoyed by those category names anyway. Markussep 20:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd wander in and say Hi!
I was AWOL for most of seven months and am just getting back up to WikiSpeed! Just stumbled on your debate to merge metrology and history of measurement (?) last fall. I thought a howdy was in order. Best, <B>Fra</B> nkB 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing my comments
Hi you removed my comments on the WP:AN/I board toady (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=45615586), it was an accident I believe but be careful please next time! Mike (T C) 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll adopt the term. Look where my contribs have been the last week! :)
 * Well, I wasn't dodging Wiki, as much as helping clean up after Katrina. I didn't have to stay, or go, but it seemed right to me. What's a few months in a tent compared to having your whole life torn away?

But it's nice to be back. Time for bed! G'night! <B>Fra</B> nkB 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Navarino
I'm not sure that I understand your question. The Serbian uprising was not pre-organised, it took advantage of the opportunity that the Russo-Turkish conflict presented. The battle of Navarino occurred after the Greeks had already revolted, won the war, and established an independent state. Miskin 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging
sofixit. I prefer to merge before I redirect, but that's just me, maybe. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Hey, we'd appreciate further comments about User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy. Thanks :) -- infinity  0  20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh... we both have the same problem, then. If we developed the Asymmetric controversy article further, we may be able to bring it to attention and do something about it, saving future editors a lot of trouble. -- infinity  0  21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfect number
In this case Warel is actually correct, any odd harmonic number would be an Ore perfect number as well. This follows from Euler's result on the form that an odd perfect number must have. JoshuaZ 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've rephrased it in a way that should make it clear what is going on. Please take a look. JoshuaZ 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Greeks
U avoided to make a comment when i talked about Anna Russell, but i also know that u are totally aware of what i am talking about.do u think that u can be considered neutral and unbiased considering the greek-related articles, when u repetendly have invited other users to come and laugh with what the greeks edit?it's just a question...--Hectorian 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll bother u with a last comment(so as not to say that i am stalking u anymore).(btw,i hate mathematics!).the question was not if i am 'laughable',but if u can be considered neutral.and for the record: if i seem nationalistic, maybe it's because u are pushing your POV.Regards --Hectorian 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that u meant stalking u when i sent u a msg here.so,no,honestly,i am not watching your page nor i am checking your contributions to see what u are doing.i did it once,however,after an edit of yours in talk:greeks,cause i wanted to see if u have opened such a discussion somewhere else and i did not notice.u may be a philhellene,since u are so fond in maths,but apparently u cannot understand the continuity of the greeks.that's our 'dispute'.i hope that we will reach a NPOV level in Greeks.all we have to do is to trust history. --Hectorian 00:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember to have seen that edit when it was made by u.but the problem is that the continuity is not only cultural.it is cultural,linguistic,genetic,religious(concerning the Byzantine Empire),etc.all these in various degrees and with mixes,but predominantly(correct usage of the word:p) the modern greeks are the descendants and inheritors of the ancient and the medieval.that's what i mean.i guess u have understood my POV quite well so far.and it is neither unsourced nor i represent the minority.--Hectorian 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries
Don't worry about replacing the comment, it was an honest mistake that we have all made, i just wanted to point it out to you, not be a dick. Sorry if i came across as one. Take care and if you need any help with anyhting let me know eh? Mike (T C) 06:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Attorney?
As an English barrister I find it impossible to believe that you are a lawyer, given the grossly defamatory and entirely POV post you made on Lord Nicholas Hervey's page. Sussexman 07:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I have put my response on my Talk page. Sussexman 09:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

This discussion page appears to be for two different users. Sussexman 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Greece
I disagree with the ongoing reverts or edits you are doing at Greeks. Historians like Runciman, Hammond etc could be cited on many of the tags you added, but I fail to see the point. I was thinking of reverting you, and I might do so in the future, but it'll be boring and unproductive, so I thought I should say "Hello!" here :) talk to +MATIA 08:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was very tempted to just grab the opportunity and make public denouncements against you, but my moral values held me back this one time. As I'm determined to go through anything in order to keep your POV out of the article, I don't know long I can hold back before I rationalize my actions and take extreme measures against you. Thought you should know that. Miskin 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us end this
Hi! This seems a good time to propose an end to this conflict. It takes a lot of time and I am sure we both can find something better to do. Here is my suggestion: The DPT article should have two sections, one that present the arguments against the DPT and one that present the arguments for. The controversial Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict have a similar structure. I agree to only edit the section with arguments supporting the DPT, you and Mr. West similarly restrict yourself to the section with arguments against. If I disagree with something you write, I do no delete your text or edit it. I instead make a response in the pro-section. The same with you. This way I hope we can end this conflict. I suggest that we first do this on an userpage, either one of mine or one of yours. Ultramarine 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Please add your arguments to "Arguments against the democratic peace". I will add to the other section. Ultramarine 16:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let us stop this. I think we both want to do other things than continue this conflict. I do think that you have found important criticisms and hope we can work to make a good article. Ultramarine 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the incorrect spelling of Russett.Ultramarine 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Data itself cannot be copyrighted. Also, I did not make that table. Have a look at User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 and please add arguments against. I will try to this, if you do not want to. If so, you have gathered many good articles and I will try add them. Ultramarine 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My first block
You blocked me for sterile reversion on Liberal democracy. I cannot complain; it produced a truce offer from Ultramarine.


 * I would, however, like to know how you concluded that my editing was sterile; I had intended to offer a number of different compromises, one of which stuck, in preference to a fixed text which two editors found unacceptable. Septentrionalis 15:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that things have been fixed up somewhat. Unfortunately I can't determine your intentions from the revert war. I felt that because you were both just reverting rather than discussing, the spirit and probably the letter of the ArbCom ruling had been breached. I hope that you can continue to work on a consensus version of the article. Stifle 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copying onto my page. I will be more careful; I had expected the intention to be clear because I offered four different texts, one radically different.
 * One matter of detail: the actual letter of the decision was not breached; it applies only to the two articles Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism. I did not point this out on AN3 because the decision should have a certain elasticity, but it shouldn't apply everywhere. Septentrionalis 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nixon's involvement in the Watergate burglaries
PM, on the unitary executive theory talk page, you wrote:
 * Nixon did order Watergate. The evidence on this was published long ago

Is there some confusion as to whether Nixon ordered the Watergate burglaries as opposed to the Watergate cover up?If you're saying that he ordered the burglaries, could you add your sources to the Watergate scandal page?If not, I'm not sure what the disputed tag you've added to unitary executive theory is intended to signify.Thanks, TheronJ 18:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Borges
Hi, thanks for your question.I've replied here: I also removed the tag from the Borges article while the matter is being discussed.Best, Johntex\talk 22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Places in Atlas Shrugged
Sure, go ahead and do it. I can't guarantee anything since I probably won't close the AfD (there are a bunch of admins who do this), but if I close it, I'll make sure it's transwikied. Johnleemk | Talk 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant specify so in the AfD nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User evol-X
David | Talk 08:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review/Userbox debates
Userbox text supplied as requested. --Doc ask?  08:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers
No problem :) I am trying to cut down my wikipedia usage, since I have an increasing number of commitments elsewhere, but if any further problems arise I won't hesitate to come and help. Just leave me a message. -- infinity  0  16:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Caron vote?
Did you mean to vote in Talk:Caron ?You made a comment that looks like a vote, but you put it in the discussion section. -- Curps 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Moment
I wasn't sure about the definitions of skewness and kurtosis; your recent edit nailed it down. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace

 * ''This discussion, which has become general, has been removed to Talk:Democratic_peace_theory

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles.Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians.It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work.Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page.Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page.If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Red links
Hello.In moment (mathematics) you created red links to "Gaussian normal distribution" and "dimensionless quantities", although good articles exist on both topics under other names: normal distribution and dimensionless number.I've both fixed the links and created redirect pages.It's a good idea to search for that sort of thing when you find you've created a red link.Since you used the plural "quantities" instead of the singular "quantity", and the article title would normally be singular, the singular form would be a good place to look first. Michael Hardy 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight template
Hi. On my Asymmetric controversy page, I've proposed the following template to be used in articles that give undue weight to a certain POV. What do you think? And btw, do you know how to get a template officially adopted? -- Nikodemos 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29
hi Pmanderson, how are you? Remember the discussion we used to have on this topic? I was wondering if we could slowly maybe draw a close, considering this topic has been on and off for over a year (previous discussions). I think we are basically not quite sure if we should have them all in English, in native version, or a mixture of both? Gryffindor 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't arm the trolls
That is my new tagline."Don't arm the trolls.Especially, don't arm the larger army of trolls in the hope that they will disarm a smaller one."See Wikipedia talk:Censorship. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that trolls with pornography collections, camera phones and telephoto lenses outnumber those who are heirs to the puritan tradition.Arming the former by a policy to get rid of the latter is dumb.
 * Personally, I think the proposal needs a stake through its heart, not reforming.Consider the ratchet to the nude that this would create.And I don't think it is fixable.Offensive images need to earn their keep a bit harder than non-offensive ones.Any policy that recognizes that is no improvement over WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.Any policy that does not will be a disaster. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was your request for enforcement not on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? Robert A.West (Talk) 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT
Appreciated, but my advice to you would be to leave the article as well. I know its like letting Ultramarine win to you, but leave the article for six months and if no one else has tackled it and you still feel that its pov then have another ago. In the end, if you believe in the wiki system then you'll realise that people will eventually come to the article and edit it into a neutral piece. In the end, your work with ultramarine has only bought you blocks and the ignomy of breaking WP:POINT. I believe that you are acommited and honest editor - you've always been more than curteous to my sometimes blundering edits - but i do think you have been guilty of 'Arming the trolls' and allowing others to get to you. Perhaps its better than collaborating... I'm not sure, but remember, DPT is not your responsibility and I believe that if we leave these things long enough, the 'democracy' - ironically - of Wikipedia will solve them. Robdurbar 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, Ok, maybe my above comments were a bit over-romanticizing the whole wiki thing ;) Robdurbar 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bounty Board
I hadn't seen this before: Bounty_board, and I thought it might amuse you. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT
I would be perfectly willing to see Ultramarine and myself both leave the article alone for six months, say. I don't particularly want to revert war for the purpose though; would you be interested in proposing this to ArbCom directly? Septentrionalis 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions which was reverted between. This is not the the case now. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful.


 * I think that if you examine the edits since I started edited the article again, there has not been sterile edit wars. Instead numerous findings from recent studies has been added, adding the view of the majority of the researchers in this field. Something Pmanderson almost completely ignored in the text he had created during the several months and which selectively described the view of the critics. So there has not been sterile wars, but instead a constructive improvement, adding the view of the other side. Again, the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions was a mistake, which I regret. However, this is not the case now and I think that if the recent edits are examined it will be found that the article has been improved by also adding the view of the other side. Ultramarine 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ultramarine for the time being, but that is strictly asuser, not an admin. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mexico discovery
FYIPerhaps there already is a Wikipedia article on this. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Chimera
Regarding your comment to Brian G. Crawford; this user is (apparently) no longer contributing to Wikipedia. Fourohfour 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback
I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we haven't touched base for a while. I've been stumbling past some talk trails where you figure prominently. You do seem to draw some stubborn (ahem) 'opponents'! So take a break from the ordinary.

It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank: (Beats handling problems!<G>) re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated.Thanks! <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Best! <B>Fra</B> nkB 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! <G>)

Long ago... (Perpetual Peace)
I answered you on my german talk-page. I didn't really understand your wish. If its still a current issue, we could discuss it here. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the vandal
You probably already know this, but no matter what the vandal puts onto your page (or any other page), Wiki policy states that any and all edits by a banned user made since their ban- can be reverted regardless of their merits. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.''" Cheers! Never Cry Wolf 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The threat posting here by Rose-mary, posting anonymously, has been removed. Her chosen methods are treason to the Republic ofLetters and deprive her of any claim to a response. Septentrionalis 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review "Religion" section of the Carthage article
Hi,

I ran into an edit conflict with you while I was working on the Religion section.I guess you and I are both trying to bring the Carthage article back to where it was before the edit wars with Marduk of Babylon.Please check the "Religion" section to see that it says what you think it should.You will note that I have moved much of the "Religion" section into its own article, Religion in Carthage.My hope is to leave only a summary of Carthaginian religion in the Carthage article with the details being explained in the Religion in Carthage article.

Richard 04:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion
Hi there. I notice that way back on April 7 you voted to delete the redirects Louis-Philippe Joseph → Louis Philippe II, duc d'Orléans and Orléans, Louis Philippe Joseph, Duc d' → Louis Philippe II, duc d'Orléans. As part of the WP:HOT missing articles project, we create redirects to our articles using the indexes of a whole slew of popular references works. Because they often have weird conventions, we sometimes get weird redirects like the two you noticed. However they do have a little value and redirects are dirt cheap, so can I urge you to keep these oddities - nine times out of 10 the creator had a good reason. Many thanks and happy editing, Pcb21 Pete 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Chimaera
Regarding your comment to my talk page, you're completely right, and I won't change this article.I just want to see cruft reduced, by whatever means necessary, and if your method works, that's great. Brian G. Crawford 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Litchfield West
Hi there. I didn't write the overly embellished part of Dr. West's article. Someone added it after I wrote the original article. Anonymous contributor 201.8.10.146 wrote that part. I saw it and didn't know what to do. I just corrected spelling. I agree with you.

I did include the two dedications in the Appreciations from the major prizes Dr. West won, The Balzan Prize and the British Academy Kenyon Medal as they said a significant bit about his work, and they were direct quotes, although as typical dedications go, typically celebratory florid.

The thing about Dr. West is that he links in a modern stroke, via Olbia especially, the Central Asian connection he proposes. It's interesting. If you want to modify or delete something, then of course do so if deemed reasonable. I know very well there have been works on shamanism and early Greek religion, but Dr. West has been especially interesting in the last couple of decades. Feel free to tone it anyway you wish. I have limited internet access right now, so I will look at it when I can. Thanks for pointing this out. Best Regards Ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek religion edits
Hi. Removing West's quote and Mitford's classic quote from this article without discussion seems a bit heavy-handed. Plus the footnotes were left in slight disarray by your edit. I am thinking what should be done. I will fix the footnotes. Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I simply fixed the footnotes but had no access to change the style. In general, I would tend to agree with your thoughts. I would add that Erwin Rohde's classic work, Psyche, is still a serious opus even now. And some others, like Jane Ellen Harrison and, for example, Themis. Best Regards and thanks for your note and thoughts. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your kind note about Erwin Rohde. I have limited and sporadic access to the internet, so I can't get much information in these days. But I will try. Best Wishes as ever. Do have a read of Rohde's Psyche someday. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof that 0.999... equals 1
I realize that the balance between an informal style and accuracy is difficult. I may not have attained it; but you appear to be assuming both ignorance and bad faith. This is understandable on such a page, but (unless I flatter myself) neither is correct. Please stop, and discuss. (Please reply on my page; I dislike watching other people's Talk.) Septentrionalis 19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to discuss the contents of the article on its talk page. But your page is an appropriate place to assure you that I have always assumed good faith, and the very content of your attempts indicates some knowledge of more sophisticated subjects, such as fields with infinitesimals. I've tried to make it clear that I'm interested in working with you in moving forward in a productive way, and that I'm sorry that so far the most productive thing has been to revert and talk about it. The only alternative I saw this last time was to completely rewrite everything you had added, replacing it with new content. Instead I sketched my objections, and sifted through the talk page archives for possibilities to propose. Let's follow up on the talk page. --KSmrqT 21:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Weißenburg
Hi, there's no article about Weißenburg in Bayern in French wikipedia, but there are articles about fr:Gießen and fr:Meißen. Wissembourg is another town, sometimes called Weißenburg im Elsass in German (it was German every now and then, for instance 1871-1918). Markussep 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * About Weißenburg/Wissembourg: I'm not sure, but I don't think W. in Bayern is called "Wissembourg en Bavière" in French. The Alsace is something special in France, just like the originally Flemish place names in present northern France and Wallonia. In my opinion, we should use the original names, unless there is a really commonly used English name for it. Meissen may be a commonly used name because of the porcelain, but Weißenburg and Gießen, I don't think many English speakers have bothered to write about those places recently. Markussep 11:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good News (religion)
Could you take a look at this?It could use both a skeptical eye, and and eye from a liturgical viewpoint, if you catch my drift.The term metanarrative was used to convey a grand narrative that spans books and testaments, and I think that a neologism and misnomer, but a classisist's voice would be helpful.WP:AGF.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad capitalisation
Could you please give me your reasoning for wanting to name Cane Toad without capitals? Could you please reply on Talk:Giant Neotropical Toad, as I would like to keep it in the right spot so the sysop can see it. I asked you there, but am guessing you missed it. Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for checking on Word of Wisdom for me. I appreciated having a second opinion. ''' Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@''' 08:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New Testament Mess
See New Testament and Talk:New Testament.An admin asked for help here after someone objected to his semi-protection.The vandalism is obvious, but the history of the article looks like a bit of a mess to me (note: current status isn't as bad as I thought -- the problem with hurredly looking at history), and the intro needs (IMO) to be rewritten.Could you be so kind as to look into it?I don't have time this weekend. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In a related question, I see under Synoptic problem the following passage: "Griesbach's explanation of Mark's redactional procedure predicts that Mark should more agree with the Evangelist he currently is copying. Overall this is true, but often Mark prefers Matthew in areas he should be more like Luke."How (if you have a clue) does the critic know which Evangelist Mark should prefer? Robert A.West (Talk) 10:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Franjo Tudjman
Hi, sorry for being intrusive, but I thought I should remind you, in case you have forgotten, that you were going to comment (from RfC) on the (currently blocked)Franjo Tudjman page. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the explanations that I've tried to give in response to your questions there. It's not that I think any of the parties would be influenced by a third party opinion (they don't even seem to be interested in discussing), but I think it would be a step in the right direction. --85.187.44.131 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Astrologers
Hi! Glad to find someone of like mind about Category:Astrologers. I wanted to ask about your adding some of the Category:Astronomers by period subcategories to Category:Astrologers by period. In theory it sounds good, but in practice...well, there are a few medieval astronomers who aren't clearly astrologers in the west. For instance, I don't remember anything connecting Sacrobosco to astrology. At the same time, of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't one. And I have no idea what the situation in nonwestern astronomy/astrology was. Rather than simply undoing the addition and making a lot more work, I'd prefer to see a more detailed comment on the category page. I hoped you would have a better idea than I how to go about it. Anyway, keep up the good work! Maestlin 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, some medieval people thought of astronomy and astrology as two separate things, and others didn't. Certainly some Renaissance figures classed them separately. I don't know whether all astrologers would have been astronomers automatically in the Middle Ages. I am all in favor of minimizing editing. Categorizing astronomers by era is already consuming enough time. Less than two months on Wikipedia, and I think I may have hit a thousand edits! Maestlin 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple decimal representations
If you are just going to revert my move of Proof that 0.999... equals 1 to multiple decimal representations, could you at least please discuss it on the article's talk page? Your edit comment for the reverse move was "moved Talk:Multiple decimal representations to Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1: Rvt unilateral move disapproved on talk." Which talk page, where, please? Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't find any reference to this on the articles talk page or its archives. -- The Anome 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, comte de Montgomery and other French nobility
Hi Septentrionalis,
 * ''I should prefer Gabriel, Count Montgomery, leaving the first line as it is.

I was thinking of proposing that all articles on French nobility follow what seems to be a norm outside Wikipedia that French is used for French nobles' names, but on second thoughts I fear the amount of time and energy required to placate various factions doesn't match my interest in the subject. I do feel, however, that it might be misleading to suggest to folk that histories of French nobility etc generally use English translations. If I'd gone so far as to be interested in material on French nobles, I guess I'd be surprised not to see and become acquainted with the relevant French terms. A minority view? Regards, David Kernow 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''There is (it seems to me) a fairly consistent predominance of [translation] for the high nobility, at least in works for a general readership...

If I were to be a little uncharitable, I'd might suggest this view proposes a "That's the way it is, so that's the best/most appropriate/whatever way for it to be" view... I'd say that since a translation and/or further information about an unfamiliar is (or can be) but a click away with a resource such as Wikipedia, there's less rather than more reason to (keep) drop(ping) to an anglophone-based lowest common denominator as regards issues such as foreign words, diacritics, etc etc. But I'm not on a crusade and have no plans to launch one, at least not for the time being! Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts, David 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''I don't think anglophony is the lowest common denominator...

My mistake; "anglophone-based lowest common denominator" was a poor description. (So much for my being an English-speaking person!) Rather, I don't see why something "in English" need be restricted to English, especially when it addresses topics regarding other countries or languages; and especially when enlightenment as regards unfamiliar words, characters, diacritics, etc need only be a click away...? Regards, David 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''I don't restrict things to English; there are those who do, and they are a pain, like all the other nationalisms. I think the (quite frequent) situation of having the article name in English and the first line bold in the other language works quite well...

Certainly to be preferred, I'd say, to having no mention at all of the original names/titles. Ah well, c'est la... oops; that's life! Yours, David 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Abercorn
I see you recently changed the phrasing there. I created Baron Hamilton of Strabane; should I move that to simply Baron of Strabane? And how did the construct "Lord Hamilton, Baron of Strabane" occur, a quirk of the letters patent? Choess 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Annabella Byron, 11th Baroness Wentworth
Have you actually read the naming conventions? I suggest you give them a go. (You could also have a look at WP:PEER while you're at it, oh, and "it's a nickname" is most certainly not a valid reason for removing a name from an article title, so I suggest you stop moving pages against policy.) Proteus (Talk) 08:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew
It depresses me to find that an educator should ignore the long tradition of the Vice-Presidency as a dead-end job, perhaps strongest when Theodore Roosevelt "took the veil". But I suppose that any nominee for Vice-President is papabile at least as a dark horse, so I took the dispute out rather than attempting to elaborate. Septentrionalis 01:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not one is "papabile" is in the perception of observers, not just in the heart of the man.My statement had to do with the aspirations of the Vice-Presidents themselves, not with the comments of contemporary pundits.Does anyone doubt that the first three vice-presidents, Adams, Jefferson, & Burr, all lusted after the presidency?Of course not.But even after the ratification of the 12th Amendment, which largely created the "dead-end" vice-presidency, who can say that the occupants of the vice-presidency did not still aspire to the highest office?Indeed, given the almost complete lack of responsibilities prior to the post WW-II changes in the office (with, I would suggest, Nixon, Mondale, and Cheney making the greatest leaps forward), what other reason would anyone have for accepting the #2 spot other than to hope to occupy the White House?


 * I assert that most of these men--like most politicians in Washington--had egos big enough to hope to become President, but probably recognized that they lacked the star power to get there by a more traditional route (e.g., becoming Secretary of State).


 * And what do you mean, "the American Vice-Presidency was not expected to lead to the Presidency before 1960".Is it "expected" to now ?Did anyone expect Dan Quayle to become President?I am totally perplexed by your statement.If you mean that we have a greater expectation that the VP be qualified to become President in the event of a vacancy since WWII or since 1963, then yes, I would agree.But as stated, your comment borders on a non sequitur.


 * As to the comment "Most countries that have Presidents have Vice-Presidents"; as I indicated, I am unaware of any, but I do not claim to know every title in the government of every country.Please lighten the load of my ignorance and share with me some of these countries who also have "Vice Presidents".And if they do have them, do they exist, as does the American VP, almost exclusively for the purpose of succeeding to the Presidency in the event of a vacancy? Unschool 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, despite the tone of my reply, I must agree that your actual edit is an improvement.My response was both to your comment in the history and to your note on my user page, paticularly the paternalistic tone of your "It depresses me . . ." comment.But your edit stands up as cleaner and less speculative than it was earlier. Unschool 02:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be paternalistic; there's too much of that going around Wikipedia. (You may wish to consider your own edit summary, btw). But do you really think that George Clinton or Jack Garner or even Andrew Johnson still aspired to the Presidency once they were VP? They'd had their turn at the greasy pole and failed. Septentrionalis 02:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe not Andy Johnson—he would have had to sober up long enough to think about it.And of course, he didn't have to think about it, he got it whether he wanted it or not.But Garner?Heck yeah he still aspired to it.If memory serves he actually had his cronies throw his name into the ring in 1940 for the ostensible reason of simply being opposed to any third term for anyone.And he had made a run earlier, though I don't remember what year it was.I mean, why else would he give up being Speaker of the House for the Vice-Presidency?Certainly not for any increase in power.Nope, it was just because it was one step closer to the possibility of obtaining real power.And to a lesser extent, I think that this was true for most VPs.Sure, we see them as candidates for an 19th century version of "The Surreal Life" (a repulsive show that I've tried to stop my family from watching), but they probably saw themselves as serious leaders. Unschool 02:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there
The issues of importance to me will always remain important, however, the destructive drive of others wears out my patience. I feel that a point has been made by some to check up on me and then contest my actions whenever possible. I'm not saying that what I say is final, but that it is amounting to ridiculous behaviour. Circular logic is what I face in defense of my efforts to improve royal Wikipedia. I do not wish to remove my archives, I merely wish to remove personal vestiges. So far, I haven't really made a move to permanently leave Wikipedia. I'm sitting on the fence for now. Thank you for the concern. I know you and I certainly do not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but you have always extended courtesy and civility to me. Charles 19:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Malicious, if I used it, may be too strong of a word. Irritating and frustrating, yes. It would be too difficult to substantiate a case to remove such individuals, so I must be the mature one and avoid the conflict, even if it occurs within my prime realm of interest. One person in particular I have confronted à propos, so they are well aware of my concerns. These individuals aren't an issue for those with patience; however, I have German blood in my veins and it lends me very little patience ;-) Since people have taken exception to my departure, I'm leaving toward a temporary vacation. I would lodge a complaint, but it would likely only be based on my feelings and draw criticism. The situation has, thankfully, been fairly low-key, just the way I like to deal with things. I don't think others will find issue with it. Charles 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Animal hoarding
I don't know what more you want.I specifically indicated what I objected to.User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of This article has a lot of POV issues, foremost being that it lumps all hoarders together -- Hoarders keep abnormally large numbers of animals for whom they do not provide even the most basic care. The sometimes hundreds of dogs or cats kept by a single hoarder generally show signs of abuse such as severe malnutrition, untreated medical conditions including open sores, cancers, and advanced dental and eye diseases, and severe psychological distress. In 80 percent of the cases studied, authorities found either dead or severely ill animals in hoarders' homes. Many hoarders make a serious effort to provide care, basic and otherwise. And "hundreds"? That's a gross exaggeration -- those numbers are extremely rare. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) is not clear?User:Zoe|(talk) 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I indicated what I want.And, as I said on the WP:ANI page, I don't know how to edit the page.User:Zoe|(talk) 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Xenophon...

He and Socrates actually speak in the Memorabilia, twice I think.Once when Xenophon and Socrates are speaking about Critobulus (Cf Xenophon's Memorabilia III.8).I think there was one more, but I don't have the book in front of me.

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents.About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III.How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords.(just generally speaking)Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general.I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind.I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy".I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when.What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure.How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries.What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant no offence in asking those whom I deemed to be most educated on this topic, considering the sort of edits made by certain contributors.Just one last question; would you consider the level of royal ancestry in the Irish and Americans to be about equal and of rather the same divergent (Feudal/Mediaeval Catholic) English sources?I hope you would forgive me for this.IP Address 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just seeing if there were any parallels between the Republican Irish and American Colonists, in respect to most recent royal ancestry.All American Presidents go back to Edward III or before, or the Scottish Stewarts etc.I assumed that due to similar sociological differences with Britain, the Irish would have relatively the same proportion as the Americans.I'm not even going into discussion on Dark Ages and Pagan royalty, or what-have-you.This is strictly Mediaeval.IP Address 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was also thinking that in the case of the French, they would all have descent from Capet-Valois.In fact, I think this about most Europeans of common roots...that they all on average descend most recently from monarchs of this time period--the 14th century.There must be some explanation for this; which I consider to be related to the Black Death, peasant risings and economy.IP Address 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry Portal?
Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--<font color="Green">E <font color="Blue">va <font color="Red">d <font color="Red">b  10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish constituencies
Hi, I saw your vote on the proposed chamnges of name to Irish parliamentary constituencies at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland.I have just posted along (possibly over-long!) reply to the discusison so far, at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland, and wondered if you might like to take a look and see what you think. --BrownHairedGirl 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

TFD May 13th
It looks like you edit conflicted with yourself and killed some votes diff =/I'll try to clean it up. Kotepho 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Two misnamed royals
Hi Pmanderson;

Can you join the vote at Talk:Marie-Chantal, Princess of Greece and Denmark and Talk:Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They have been moved without discussion. I believe the former (and proposed names) conform to all relevant conventions. Thanks. Charles 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deprod of Baldwin de Redvers
I have removed the prod tag from Baldwin de Redvers, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. In this case, it seems the person is of some minor but not insignificant historical importance (check out what links there), and while we may have exhausted online sources here, it is possible that someone with an offline source may eventually improve this. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mango juice talk 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE - have it your way
Hi Pmanderson,

Don't ask me how I originally got to your page, because I don't remember, but I just read your AD/CE comment.I was just wondering, would a wikier way to deal with the controversy be to implement another user option for "mass customization"? It could work like dates. Any "AD" or "CE", etc., could "somehow" actually be displayed according to user preference.Just a thought. :-)Regards, Rfrisbietalk 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV
You may be interested to know that User:Maior has bought the Gillespie thing to deletion review, and as it stands it will get undeleted because people believe his "source." This is a disgrace. Mackensen (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Greek Macedonians to Category:Ancient Macedonians
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 21

I spent the past two nights straightening out the supra and sub categories,Assuming Good Faith that merely didn't understand how category trees work, as opposed to a power grab for wikiterritory....(His name certainly matches the personality.)

Given the cleanup, would you be willing to withdraw?That might put the issue to rest.
 * --William Allen Simpson 04:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC) -- watching here for answer


 * Thank you; I am quite satisfied with what has been done, and hope that sunlight will serve to keep it disinfected. I had hoped that a bot would have been sufficient.If it will help to withdraw, I will be happy to do so. It should be clear by now that this is not merely a misunderstanding of the function of a category, but a deep belief that Ptolemy son of Lagus is Greek, whatever the ancient sources may indicate. Septentrionalis 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As both the article and category were very recent and contentious creations, I rather thought that might be the case.I'm not sure a bot would have helped, as too much thought was required (actually reading many of the articles).That Greek Macedonians article will bear watching.It has fairly strong POV conflicts with the others and the disambiguation pages.
 * --William Allen Simpson 05:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

dating origin of word "democracy"
I noticed you changed the dating of the origin of the word "democracy" from the 6th to 5th century BC.I assume you mean it dates to the 400s, and that someone else had it dated in the 500s BC incorrectly, as opposed to a correct date in the 500s (which would be the 6th century)?BTW, is there a good source for the dating of the early usage of the word that could be added? - David Oberst 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

names
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) may interest you. Marrtel 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WT:CSD
Hi; could you please note which proposals you meant at WT:CSD?Thanks!Happy editing! --AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^ <font color="#FF6633">- <font color="#FF3300">^ 03:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up
Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three".Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable.Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI.Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians again
Hi Septentrionalis, please take it easy on the Macedonians. I currently have quite good working contacts with the Greek guys, they are certainly adherents of the mainstream Greek views on the Mac. issues, but especially Niko and Telex are very sensible and open-minded fellows. We shouldn't be antagonizing them. Let's try our best to maintain a good collaborative atmosphere there. I think everybody agrees the article needs some rewrite and pruning down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I self-identify as completely unreasonable and narrow-minded! Fut.Perfect's extreme nationalist claims that I am sensible and open-minded are baseless and insulting, since he is not accepting my self-identifying term! I am uptight and serious too, so stop with the PA's, already!  N i k o S il v e r   <font size="-2">(T) @ (C) 15:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll quote you on that ;->. Septentrionalis 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! It doesn't matter! I'll change self-id accordingly, so you'll be in a violation of the new one!  N i k o S il v e r   <font size="-2">(T) @ (C) 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your "vote" on orthopAedics move not counted....
Someone did a hasty, odd counting of the opinions about moving orthopedics.... I'm too new to Wikipedia to know how to complain. BrianinStockholm 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

your comment on JzG's talk page
Just as a heads up, JzG's on indefinite wikibreak. <font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> RasputinAXP  c  21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; what happened? He will be a loss. Septentrionalis 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rummel
I see Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies was already speedy deleted. Let me know if the article nevertheless manages to appear again. 172 | Talk 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. You call for more ballance in DPT, yet when an article is created whos purpose was to clearly show both sides of the issue you propose it for deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg
I see you are back; I have proposed to move this article to a simpler name, partly on the grounds that I find histories of the French Revolution call him simply Duke of Bruswick. An I right? Please comment. Septentrionalis 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my remark. I'm only sort of back: I'm lagging about 2 weeks on my watchlist, I'm attending a film festival and working full time, and I am pretty sure that I'll be traveling on business again within weeks. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ultramarine
I found out who deleted the article Possible wars between liberal democracies it was you.If you can't debate with Ultramarine on the merits, don't start using wikipedia policy as a stick to push your own POV.I despise people that do this, no matter what their political persuasion.I don't know all the facts behind you two's debate, but so far you hve come off much worse than Ultramarine.Travb (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Louis of Lorraine
Talk:Louis of Lorraine, Pretender of France - hi, do you have any opinion about the verifiablity problems I presented about this guy. Have you any better success than me with finding something tangible about this guy from internet? Marrtel 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to check with you, whether Jagiello or Jagello is the true Latin version of that surname/first name. When I checked Latin, Italian and French sources, there the name is Jagello. Please provide your available info which is the Latin usage in your sources. Marrtel 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion in this case?
A survey ongoing at Talk:House of Karadjordjević where a move to a Serbian variant requested. Henq 10:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you share your opinion at RM survey at Talk:Sigismund III of Poland Marrtel 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivial and non-trivial properties of numbers
If you have time to read it, I would like your comments on WP:1729. PrimeFan 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Incomplete closure
Hm... the article was tagged for speedy (and I agreed per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT); I must've missed the Afd somehow (and, I looked) and overlooked the restoration as a recreation. Live and learn, I guess. I've restored the page. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, thanks. Remind me tomorrow ;) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh... interesting. I'm inclined to leave it be, given the consensus. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 21:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

jogaila
How about a short and simple solution: "Jagiello". Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland - there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

cleanup & neutrality
As far as I can see, the only discussion on the talk page of the Lady Byron article is regarding the naming of the page. There is no mention of what needs to be cleaned up or any discussion of neutrality. Did I overlook something there? What I see there certainly doesn't justify placing those tags on the article. If there's a point to be made, it seems to be that her name cannot be agreed upon by Wikipedians. That's not an issue of neutrality; it's a factual dispute. - Nunh-huh 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a place for discussion of the article on it's talk page for those who want to actually fix it. - Nunh-huh 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Euro sign
I'm hoping my counter arguments will suffice to show Philip's arguments to be insufficient. Just look at Currency signs. Claiming ECB authority for the term euro symbol over euro sign simply makes no sense. Even if there are 400,000 Google hits for the first, there are still 156,000 for the second, and that's a significant enough percentage to make harmonizing the name with the other currency signs a sensible choice for the Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. Evertype 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello!I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion.You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism.Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles!Cheers!Fishhead64 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish medieval monarchs naming
Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave, Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your response is requested
A request for peer review on the article regarding Democratic Peace Theory has come to my attention.I am interested in helping.I am willing to act either as a reviewer or as a mediator.I have posted a comment on the talk page for Democratic Peace Theory.I invite you to respond and let me know how I can help with this article (an article that seems important but is in somewhat bad shape). I absolutely adore your picture of the water with the small pier.Can I have it? --Blue Tie 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture. It appears to me that you have given up on the DTP article.Is that approximately correct?--Blue Tie 12:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
Light Current wants to change the first paragraph of WP:V.Your thoughts on the four (so far) versions would be appreciated. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π
Not a big deal, but before you make any edits/reverts again please read the article's talk page section first.I added something there which I forgot to mention in the edit summaries. 131.107.0.73 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles
Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Charles 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The template was only used for three kings of Prussia, the last three which were German Emperors. The German Imperial template box has been modified to include the royal titles and this template is not longer needed as no page links to it (and there is a standard template for kings). Charles 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My return
I believe that I passed the comps. Currently I am in Indiana doing a workshop of sorts. Anyway... I am not sure how long I'll be back. It seems as though this place is covered with deletion-Nazis now. --<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Blood Red">Scaife   <font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black">(Talk)   21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic Webfitters et al.
Thanks for the pointer!  &middot; rodii &middot;  21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"non-christian" monarchs
Sadly, it seems to me that Muslim rulers are named, despite NC, by various other dab means: Husein ibn Ali, Ali ibn Husein, etc. Titles and territories lacking. And many caliphs are under just one name, territory lacking systematically. See all those.

Perhaps it's time to confess in NC that they are not applied to Muslims? Maed 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Legio X Fretensis
I did not understant your comment in Talk:Legio X.--Panairjdde 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamiltonia
I agree that Rjensen is committing hagiography, but I think you have allowed yourself to be provoked into tendentiousness.Hamilton's scandals are verifiable and NPOV requires their inclusion.I see that you have asked for Guerilla Mediation -- I hope that goes well. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to tone, rather than content.To some extent, it may be the BJ problem -- long paragraphs and run-on sentences tend to be read as tendentious, but that is a problem you inherited.I'll try some more tonight. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackbeard
I ran across this after creating Category:Duellists.I have been thinking of moving this to Edward Teach, but am not sure.There appears to have been no discussion, and there would be only one redirect to fix.Thoughts? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.
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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking your feedback
Looking for your feedback on the Talk:Kerchief page. Thanks! The Editrix 17:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW
As an American who spent better than a decade in Asia editing Brit-language pubs, I'm ambilingual, and never seek to impose one form or t'other. The kerchief page discussion was solely a categoris/zation concern. Thanks for your fix. Now I'm a bit smarter than I was five minutes ago. --The Editrix 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Delete
Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisd e n17 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Pmanderson;

Would you consider visiting Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar and contributing? Thanks. Charles 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Related issue
Can you check out Wikiquette_alerts (I am the subect of a Wikiquette alert)? You and I have had a few run-ins at times, but I feel you can provide (only if you choose to) an objective and honest, unbiased opinion on the matters contained within the alert. Thanks. Charles 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Help in verification.
From List of famous duels:


 * 1835: William Arden, 2nd Baron Alvanley and Morgan O'Connell, son of Daniel O'Connell. Alvanley asserted that Morgan's father had been "purchased" by William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne on his accession to the office of Prime Minister, O'Connell retorted by calling Alvanley "a bloated buffoon".

From Morgan O'Connell


 * He almost engaged in a duel in 1835 with the British politician Benjamin Disraeli, but apparently the duel never actually occurred. His own father had killed a man, John D'Esterre, in a duel allegedly over "gentlemanly honour" in 1815 in Dublin, Ireland, but later professed to regretting it and tried to help the D'Esterre family wherever possible afterwards.

Thanks.Robert A.West (Talk) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party
Thanks for defending the "Democratic-Republican Party" naming convention at the Democratic-Republican Party article. I've been round and round with those guys about a million times. (rjensen once wrote a bogus article called "Democrat Party" claiming historical justification for that term, but it fortunately got deleted[]). In just about every textbook I have, it's "Democratic-Republican Party." I'm wondering if the name didn't change to Democratic-Republican shortly after the French Revolution. After the bloody events in France became known, being named "Republican" could have been a handicap to a political party, the remedy of which could have been attaching "Democratic" to its name. Just an idea I had. Griot 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think rjensen does have an agenda, although, like you, I wouldn't say his edits are necessarily dishonest. He once argued on the Iraq War page that the war is a "liberation" attempt. My main objection to his edits is that, when he finds something interesting in a history book, he quotes it wholesale into wiki articles whether the quote really belongs there. Have a look at Culture of the Southern United States, where he pasted in a long article about tobacco spitting from a book published in 1917. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Griot 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fray
I put in a requested move.Someone replaced the dab page with an article about some indie-rock band barely out of the garage.If you care. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII and shared users
Now that RJII has admitted to it (and been banned), I wonder how many editors with 10K+ edits are actually groups?I wonder if there are any admins that are actually shared users?I accuse no one, but the thought occurs. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Emperors
I just came across the nonsense that happened last month over at Talk:Constantine XI.The "mediation" that occurred there seems to be an insane misconstrual of what mediation is supposed to accomplish.I notice you were objecting at the time.Do you have any ideas of what can be done about this now? john k 13:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding of mediation, which appears to be supported by Mediation, is that mediators have absolutely zero authority to prescribe solutions to content disputes.All they can do is propose a compromise that both sides will accept.Their proposal is not binding on anyone, and if one side rejects it, then everyone has to go back to the drawing board. In this case, the mediator took sides, and proposed a solution entirely to the benefit of one side of the debate, and then this was used by that side of a debate as an excuse, essentially, to declare victory and do what they want after a farce of a "second vote".This was not helped by the fact that, other than you (who protested) and Adam Bishop (who acquiesced), everyone else who participated in the original vote was AWOL at the time this nonsense went through. Personally, I think it was a serious mistake to take the thing to mediation in the first place.After the original vote ended up with no consensus, Panairjdde should have declared victory and gone home.No consensus=no change, or at least it should. john k 17:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gasoline on fires?
Of all the charges I never thought that I would have to hear, that you are pro-slavery is one of them.I understand your dislike of the starry-eyed tone that Rjensen has adopted, but I think you are causing him to dig in his heels.Call me "nanny" if you must. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it is counterproductive to head a section, "Whitewash!"This time, I am taking the eventualist position, and I will try to review sources in detail next weekend. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wars are best avoided, but if one gets into one, it is foolhardy to hand the other side ammunition in the inevitable propaganda campaign.I seem to recall someone's saying this about a certain piece of shrubbery. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Imbros and Tenedos Page
I reverted back your edit due to the fact that the result of your edit was not just Revert to English names as the edit summary states. As for incorporating Imbros and Tenodos as English namesto the article, I invite you to take another look at the discussion page. (BTW, I don't necessarily believe that your intention was to revert other edits in the article together with the names) DeliDumrul 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My reason for reverting your edit was not about the naming of the article (Hectorian already rv-ed my rv). I reverted your edit because reverted some other edits together with the names.

On the other hand, many people believe that google counts are misleading. Even if they were meaningful, it is explicitly stated that Wikipedia is not a democracy—the saying that "what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right" applies (from Voting is evil). DeliDumrul 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your username and your signature's being different is confusing. Regards DeliDumrul 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity I double-checked the google search results for Imbros Tenedos and read through the summaries of the first 40 results. All of the hits were either pages about history or Greek sites, except for merely a couple of sites. DeliDumrul 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your citation tags, but more needs to be done on the Greek population section;
 * First paragraph, first line: In all likelihood, the islands were inhabited primarily by ethnic Greeks from ancient times through to around the middle of the twentieth century. .
 * If this is a fact, In all likelihood phrase makes it a POV by itself. This needs a source.


 * First paragraph, last line: This, combined with the strong presence of the Greek Orthodox church, makes any other conclusion unlikely. .
 * This is the editors own interpretation of the paragraph he wrote, which makes it POV.


 * The part taken from treaty should be cited.


 * Next paragraph after the treaty: In simpler language, the islands were to be largely autonomous and self-governing, with its own police force.
 * The treaty is in a comprehensible language, there is no need to rephrase the treaty.


 * Same paragraph Turkish policy consistently undermined both the spirit and letter of this commitment: 
 * This is plainly a point of view.


 * Continuing: and the local Greek population was marginalized in multiple ways.
 * Citation?


 * Fourth paragraph, Large numbers of mainland Turks were settled on the two islands,
 * Were they settled or did they settle. In any case, needs citation.


 * Same paragraph,  without any meaningful reparations being paid. 
 * meaningful is a relative word, also needs citation.


 * Greeks had owned 95 percent of Imbros' agricultural land prior to these expropriations, today they own almost none.
 * needs citation.


 * Guarantees that were made to all the Greek inhabitants of Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne were ignored, and the Turkish government implemented a policy of intimidation.
 * this is POV.


 * resulting in grievious harm both to the Greek islanders' property and, in some cases, to the Greek islanders themselves.
 * needs citation. (I don't know how the word grievious fits in here)


 * If this was the intent of the Turkish policies, they have been successful.
 * I believe this can not be NPOV under any circumstance. DeliDumrul 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about not putting this on the discussion page, as I'm still not satisfied with the naming discussion. This would just makes things worse for all of us. But on the other hand, at least the direct POV parts should be removed asap. thanks, DeliDumrul 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to remind you of this basic, simple yet very important rule about information put down just faute de mieux:

<div style="border:solid #aaa 1px; margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size:95%; background:#f9f9f9; width:50em; padding:0px 8px 0px 8px; text-align:left; float:center;">

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag.

Wrong.It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.''' -- Jimbo Wales

Sorry for pushing all the burden on you but the other user (Hectorian, who made one of the reverts) did not reply to my message. Unless somebody sources them, I'm gonna have to delete all the statements that need citation. DeliDumrul 03:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. While I have no clue why you put the first two references in the article, the third one is clearly not acceptable. It's just another entity who shares the editor's POV(or NPOV). The forth one should be linked back to a citation mark in the relevant paragraph. DeliDumrul 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry I somehow missed your last two messages. With Globo getting into the mix and his awful attitude, I went on and removed your references. However, before removing, I checked the two references on the web and even had a native French speaker go through the Quebec website (even though I can understand what the site talks about with my very poor French). We should not reference those sites. DeliDumrul 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope sources don't have to be neutral, that is true when you are pointing out a POV on a subject. The article is not doing that, but claiming facts. Keeping those references would make them look like accepted facts. That part of the article either should beentirely rewritten with proper references as needed and the POV parts should be properly phrased (clearly and plainly, such as, such entity says:..) or should be deleted with a replacement text that says Greeks were/are part of the islands and with an expansion tag. DeliDumrul 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And.. Please bear with me. I'm patiently waiting for the clean up of that section. Other than good faith, personally I don't see any reason to keep such a section on history without any valid NPOV references. I kindly expect you not to include those references until the section is cleaned up.


 * By the way, we have to copy these discussions to the article page if we are gonna make edits on the article. People has to know the reasons for the edits. DeliDumrul 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul
I don't think Istanbul was limited by the west side of the strait in Ottoman times. As far as I can remember, the fortress on the east side was built across Constantinople before 1453. Usually cities grow around the fortresses really fast once it becomes safe for civilians. I can't tell any dates off top of my head. sorry DeliDumrul 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your message. Nope, I couldn't find anything yet. But I learned some interesting trivia; there might have been humans in Istanbul area 300.000 year ago (they found some remains in a cave excavation), there were four offical administrational disctricts in 1459 (all on the west side), on Semptember 14, 1509 there was an earthquake that scaled 8.0 on richter!!!, the earthquakes lasted 45 days and they called the event the minor hell, the city was almost totally leveled, Beyazid II comissioned 80.000 people to rebuild the city in 1510. Amazing stuff happened there! DeliDumrul 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, these are just from a portal-type web site. I don't have acceptable sources and I'm spending way too much time looking for stuff on the web. Anyways.. Gotta go grab some food DeliDumrul

Wow!
Remember the ...err... eccentric I told you about?Look at this, just for jaw-dropping strangeness: [].Brad Patrick is General Counsel of the Foundation. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NewUser needs input
Hi! Ho! Hey! Long time no see!How's things down your way? Very wet season up here North of Beantown. My plants love it, but my yardwork is way behind!

Newbie User_talk:Rdengrove contacted meabout a large rewrite he did on Mephistopheles, and I plead 'ignorance', save for superficial passing familiarity. If you've got some knowledge in the area (or perhaps, instead on or about 'Faust'), or just want to be 'welcoming', see if you can lend a hand. Thanks! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC) NewUser needs input


 * Paul,
 * Thanks for being a first class guy on User_talk:Rdengrove, etc. Was out of my league! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused!
I got this message ;
 * I reverted the change u made to mention 1st the name in turkish and then in english [..] --Hectorian 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

on my page right after you made this revert and added this: " If this sort of nonsense on the names does not stop.. " on the discussion page of the article. What's going on?!? DeliDumrul 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton
I've been reading the talk page over there, and I agree that Rjensen's conduct there has been fairly inexcusable, especially calling you pro-slavery.I don't know enough about the substance to comment informedly, but he does seem to be advocating a rather simplistic and hagiographical vision of Hamilton.Beyond that, my view of Rjensen has generally been about yours - he has a definite POV, but he's useful and generally knows what he's talking about.On the other hand, there was some genuine weirdness I got into with him about the weird ass idiosyncratic article we have entitled something like "Predictions of the fall of the Soviet Union" (but not actually called that - I am too lazy to figure out the actual title), where he was insisting on a similar kind of hagiographic treatment of Reagan in that context.I tried to argue with him about it, but it didn't really go anywhere, and pages like that tend to be full of fools, which makes it hard to get a decent point across. I'm not sure what's to be done about it. john k 15:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have endorsed the summary because time was running short.I'm not sure of procedure, but I would like to add the following paragraph to the description, giving my reason for feeling that the attribution of such a position is a personal attack, but you have been through this.


 * There are few political opinions that cannot be attributed to someone without attacking the subject's character: being pro-slavery is one of those.Slavery is a crime against Humanity that comprehends, of necessity, cruelty and murder &mdash; if it did not, it could not be maintained.It nearly always comprehends rape, or at least involuntary intercourse.Child molestation is common.To make a statement defending slavery is to defend these things.To accuse someone of defending slavery is to accuse them of willingness to participate in such crimes.


 * What should I do with this? Robert A.West (Talk) 21:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPIDER
Excellent shortcut... well done! :-) Netscott 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Slavery
I'm sure it's unintentional, but you are coming across as just a tad condescending. Bridesmill 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC) It was the LSJ expansion but. No offense, just that we (me included) sometimes don't notice when we're getting that way Yes, I tend to anthropomorphize books...(there, another closet stepped out of) :-) Bridesmill 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.
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.

Highgate Vampire
I'd be grateful if you could drop by that page and propose some solution. It's a revert war due to a kind of POV vandalism, with the user reverting sourced information and inserting comments that belong to the talk page. --85.187.44.131 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the above message: the admins have finally reacted, (when I was already becoming desperate). Cheers! --85.187.44.131 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OCD link in Ariadne
Not sure what you meant there, probably Oxford Concise Dictionary? I'm just removing the link -- it's going to Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Kendrick7 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I misread the disambig page for OCD, "concise" for "classical". Obviously you meant the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Fixed the link. Kendrick7 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
Is there some way of handling all of the re-directs for Type I and type II errors apart from doing it one-by-one? I have been changing things for about 45 mins, and I seem to have made no real progress. Hope that you can help Lindsay658 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Caron
While your vote at caron is appreciated, do you think you could take a second to come back and back-up your argument? Thank you. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

William Woodthorpe Tarn and Will Cuppy
Hi!. I saw the remark you made on William Woodthorpe Tarn to see also Will Cuppy. I must admit this is the first time I ever heard of Mr. Cuppy, but still, and I am sorry to say, I see no connection between W.W.Tarn and W.Cuppy at all. Is there any? Regards Guss2 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Ethics Violation
It will be better to be careful wity your language and use a better style. People like you make discussion unwelcome.--Connection 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[Cross-page Reply] Now is much better. The discussion is being specific to the merits of the case. You are right an article will be more productive, will serve the purpose and will invite editors to contribute specific "data". In fact I was planning this earlier yet due to your previous "engagement", I expected you will CfD also! In the end of the day, the user will find what he is researching. To "narrow things" down, what do you suggest such an article title would be? Thanks and Regards.--Connection 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment and request in response to your request for comments... :)
I was trying to look over the edit history at Alexander Hamilton to get an idea of the situation, but was a bit put off by the sheer number of consecutive edits you've been doing there (makes it hard for me to figure out what versions to compare). I'll have another look in the morning, but in the future, you might want to consider making use of the "show preview" button. Aside from making comments easier, this also saves server space. SB Johnny 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of them are section-by section, but a lot are repeating the same section, see the history page and you'll see what I mean. SB Johnny 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a run-around kind of day... I'm still interested in helping out, but won't have free time 'til early tomorow. SB Johnny 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Greek articles by RandyS0725
Hi Paul. New (8 July 2006) contributor User:RandyS0725 made a lot of changes to Greek classical Wikipedia articles:Special:Contributions/RandyS0725 The article on the Moirae especially doesn't seem to hang togther quite after the changes. I, myself, put the original quote by H.J. Rose from his work, Handbook of Greek Mythology into the article, book in hand, and know that what I put is what Rose wrote. "H.J. Rose writes that Nyx ("Night") was also the mother of the Moirae as she was of the Erinyes, in the Orphic tradition." RandyS0725 reworded it and it no longer, I feel, represents what H.J. Rose wrote. There are also other questions in what RandyS0725 wrote in that article. I will change at least that back to what it was. But RandyS0725 has modified lots of Greek mythology articles and I don't have enough internet access to check them. Could you check them when or if you have time? I have asked a couple of other classics Wikipedians also. Bests as ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also been looking at the edits by User:RandyS0725. I was initially reluctant to simply revert all of his edits, because I don't want to wipe out the contributions of a new user. But after noticing the way he's edited his talk page and the manifesto-like quality of his user page, I'm becoming less reluctant. What's your opinion? --Akhilleus (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that his edits are being reverted. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I ended up reverting even more of his changes, since almost all of them looked questionable to me. I hope I didn't go overboard. If he had just used edit summaries, I would have been better disposed towards his changes... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul and Akhilleus. Thanks for your help and comments. I was a bit unearthed by User:RandyS0725's comments on his page. I would have been better disposed also, if there was a rhyme and reason to it all in the larger sense or commentary. I just know re-wording the H.J. Rose quote was very off-kilter, and removing images and highly developed article text semingly willy-nilly --- that was very untoward. We all want to encourage new Wikipedians. But I hope he learned from this --- just a bit. We all learn. Bests to all. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia strategy move
This page has been moved into the Wikipedia namespace, but a further namechange is pending on the talk page. You commented before the first move, would you like to weigh in again? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
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.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium
On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad citation templates
When you have looked at a source, and believe it does not support the edit, I commend:


 * request quote to ask for the passage being used for authority.
 * failed verification for individual claims when you are convinced the citation is spurious.
 * citecheck for articles or sections that are full of spurious citations.

Perhaps this will avoid misinterpretation at least some of the time? Robert A.West (Talk) 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PHS
Actually, I care. And who provides the fire service? The police service? The restaurant permits? See, as much as the Princeton community is cohesive, there are still two princetons. Also, this is an encyclopedia. Being pedantic is a must. WhisperToMe 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See this: "Princeton University is a coeducational private university on an extensive campus mostly in the Borough of Princeton, partly in the Princeton Township, and partly in several other municipalities, in New Jersey, United States."

Mention the legal location first. Community stuff comes later - after all, cities are fragmented into MANY different communities, and some cities make up parts of communities. WhisperToMe 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey - look at Princeton High School (New Jersey) - We have decided what is going to be in the header there. Legal place name is common usage WhisperToMe 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

" 	:::Princeton High School (New Jersey), worthy institution though it is, will attract a smaller readership, and more of them will care about NJ municipal boundaries. Septentrionalis 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

Yeah, but the readership count doesn't change the fact that legal place names always go in the header. Lots of times U.S. addresses are misleading about locations of places (e.g. all areas in Jersey Village, Texas have "Houston" addresses even though they are not in the city of Jersey Village) - Why make an exception for Princeton University? WhisperToMe 22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"+	::::Please stop inventing policy. Septentrionalis 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

Read the talk page of Princeton High School. The editors decided on using legal placename in front, and address name in the "location" bar of the address. This is policy. Wikipedia policy does NOT say that the U.S.P.S. place name must be used in the beginning of an article. WhisperToMe 23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia actually avoids using legal names in many cases, because of the PoV issues as to whose laws apply."

Where does it say this? And this doesn't affect New Jersey, nor does it affect Texas (where city boundaries are crazy!) WhisperToMe 23:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Ellis Island mentions its legal boundaries in the head paragraph: "Ellis Island, at the mouth of the Hudson River in New York Harbor, was at one time the main immigration port for immigrants entering the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Ellis Island is within the boundaries of Jersey City, New Jersey, but is administered by the states of New Jersey and New York."

WhisperToMe 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

":::::Yes, that's the settlement of the edit war. No civic pride should be involved here. Septentrionalis 23:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

Then, doesn't that only further my point about having the legal boundaries in the lead paragraph? (admittedly, the Statue of Liberty article doesn't do that, but Liberty Island mentions this in the third paragraph) - The Princeton University stuff isn't so complicated (part of the university is in one municipality, part is in another...) so it can easily fit in the head paragraph.WhisperToMe 23:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"::::::No. There is no off-WP dispute here. You are merely causing trouble. Septentrionalis 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a Wikipedia dispute (not off-WP, but this is legitimate). And it's not a good idea to make this personal. WhisperToMe 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction :) - I've stopped the edit warring... I'd rather discuss than get slapped by 3RR. WhisperToMe 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, User:Alansohn mentioned this when I was tinkering with the PHS article... " 	:I'm having the same issue with the three Princeton problem. For the most part, regardless of the entity (school, organization, park, etc.) it's either in the Borough of Princeton, New Jersey OR Princeton Township, New Jersey. It's not in Princeton, New Jersey. I think the wording that says something is in Princeton (not Borough or Township) only confuses the fact. I more than understand that colloquial use of Princeton covers both municipalities and that the post office covers both; but that's a poor excuse to ignore a fundamental distinction. After all, no one lives at the post office. There are articles for The Amboys, The Caldwells, The Oranges and The Ridgefields, but these are merely collective groupings of individual and distinct municipalities: there is nothing that's located in The Oranges. Alansohn 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

WhisperToMe 23:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"What consensus? Your so-called consensus was you and a Texan buddy reverting until I got sick of it and your changes were prevailed by default. The only other person to comment opposed your changes. Congratulations on your remarkable ability to call a consensus in your favour a situation where you literally do not have the support of any other editor of the article. D. G. 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)"

It wasn't just a Texan buddy. May I point you out to...

"IMHO it makes sense for the "legal" location to be in the lead of the article, not in the infobox which gives the address (since the address is Princeton, not the Borough), and to leave it out for the rest of the article. As far as feeder patterns go, I have no particular feeling, but I have to say the section on the choir is thoroughly bloated. Mak (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with your in the lead but not with the infobox idea :) WhisperToMe 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC) "

User:Makemi came up with a solution, and I agreed with it, and, considering the lack of response, apparently everyone else did too. WhisperToMe 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh - yeah, it did! I'm sorry. WhisperToMe 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, User:DG started reverting the compromise that User:Makemi came up with - When he asked how there could be a consensus, I showed him the text. WhisperToMe 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the second edit was intended for you - I was explaining the scenario I was in. WhisperToMe 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, about Alansohn's comment in my talk page, it was actually about the Princeton High School, NOT the University. But it's related since the dispute is of the same type. WhisperToMe 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Alansohn also made this statement on my talk page:

":All of New Jersey is incorporated. Every square inch is part of one of New Jersey's 566 municipalities. Part of the confusion we have in New Jersey is that people think that they "live" in their post office location. For example, in Hun School of Princeton, the statement that the school is "located in Princeton Township, New Jersey" is 100% accurate. That "The school has a 'Princeton, New Jersey' mailing address" is true, but starts in the wrong direction. That it "is thought to be 'in Princeton'." goes over the edge. At a maximum, the "in Princeton" statements (and certainly Princeton, New Jersey wikilinks) should be removed, wherever they appear. Alansohn 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

He and I share this viewpoint.

WhisperToMe 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of places end up like Princeton University. I agree with the layout and format of "Princeton, New Jersey" - But as with the University - Well, Alief Independent School District, when it was first established, was not a part of the city of Houston; it was named after a distinct, unincorporated community. Over time, the city of Houston annexed much of the district's land. Now the district is headquartered in the city of Houston but it also covers a few bits of unincorporated Harris County. WhisperToMe 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the scenario seems similar - Princeton was once one municipality but it split into two over school taxes (and, yes, the school district is reunited, but not the municipalities themselves.) WhisperToMe 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th


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. --Michael Snow 05:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

scandinavia
Why do you edit scandinavia. When you probably don't know much about scandinavia, and what it is. If you just speak scandinavian language. You can go to the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish wikipedia and see what is Scandinavia and what is Nordic. --Comanche cph 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And don't think you come here to make it a better Encyclopedia. This article has nothing to do with neutral. It has something to do in what Scandinavia IS and what The Nordic is. And there is many totally wrong faults in your edit. And since you keep revert it. Then it looks more like you supporting the Pro-Finish vandalism. --Comanche cph 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed you about something that others have been preventing people from telling you.If you do not receive it, please respond on your talk page. Dagedzil 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not gone any email from you. Just write what you will say here. It's a open encyclopedia you know. --Comanche cph 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclopean structures
Hi. I'm involved in what seems to be an irresolvable dispute over at Cyclopean structures. I've created a RfC, would you care to comment at Talk:Cyclopean structures? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. I fear the discussion will continue, but it's good to have some additional voice participate. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Areas of Edinburgh
Hello. I'm curious about the rationale behind your recent edit (without edit summary, which might have explained it) to the Areas of Edinburgh article, in which you replaced a link to Template:Areas of Edinburgh with the contents of that template. Whilst I understand about the usfulness of the concept in situations where the template content is static, surely in this case we run the risk of things getting out of synch? The contents of "areas" is sadly not static. There is an ongoing discussion, for example, about whether North Gyle is an area at all, or just part of the name of some streets in South Gyle. If there is a change to the template, the article now needs to be changed too, which seems dangerous. – <font color="#006600">Kieran T (<font color="#006600">talk  18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me that you expect me to reply here; but it would have been nice to mention it in your message as well. If you look at what links to the template you will find that the only places that do are talkpages. Two areas did, but I cleaned these up as inadvertent inconsistencies. If there is consensus to restore it there or elsewhere, do by all means do so; but there is considerable sentiment against large templates full of links. Septentrionalis 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're at liberty to reply wherever you like. In all good faith, it seems to me that it's only sensible to have a conversation on one page. Don't really see why that appears to have riled you; 'twas certainly unintended, but my apologies nevertheless. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the position of the template; I had, in the past, seen it directly incorporated into other pages, but these have obviously been tidied up now, in part by your own good efforts, so thanks for that also. Looks like my concern for it being out of synch is no longer neccessary. In fact, it seems it would now be worth putting the template into the deletion process (again); what do you think? – <font color="#006600">Kieran T (<font color="#006600">talk  18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What to do with the template depends on the feeling of other editors: if there's a minority to use it on the individual pages, it may be worth keeping around. If there is consensus for the present arrangement, the template should be deleted, but with a right to recreate; if it were up to me, I would do that.
 * I'm not riled, and I am replying here; I have no objection to the minority convention of keeping conversations together - but since you adhere strongly to that convention, it would be nice to save people the clicks to get your "please don't answer here" message. Septentrionalis 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War Mess
If I say so myself, I think you did a great job of dealing with the abolition mess.Jimmuldrow 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


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. --Michael Snow 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jogaila
Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


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 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

re Useful idiot
Hi. I only changed the article's categorization. The NPOV tag was already there... Intangible 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

revert
Please note on FDR that you just reverted to restore language that is already in the prior sentence and doesn't quite work where it is.I'd suggesta quick re-read and a fix it to leave it in one place and eliminate the other.Sam 14:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sam 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland
I personally agree, his terms of office should end March 4, 1889 & March 4, 1897 (instead of March 3). However, if you'll checkup on Talk: President of the United States/ARCHIVE 1, you'll see what the argument is for having the dates (leaving office) as March 3. I too as you'll see, argued in favor of March 4th, but was continueously rebuffed. You'll notice Wikipedia has all the pre-20th amendment Presidents & VPs (who completed their terms), listed as leaving office on a March 3rd. GoodDay 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Last year, I changed all the pre-20th amendment dates to March 4th (leaving office), but then they were all changed back to March 3rd. I haven't the energy to change them back to March 4th (only to have them reverted to March 3rd) again. If you want to change the dates to March 4th ,that would be great and I'd support it. After all, the March 3rd thing, does appear to say that (every 4 years/pre-20th amendment), there's no President or Vice President from March 3rd Midnight ,until Noon EST March 4th. No President or Vice President for 12 hours.GoodDay 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I start changing some Presidents & VP's tenures as well (March 3rd to March 4th). GoodDay 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it happend. I started at George Washington & got as far as Ulysses S.Grant before I was tackled by Tomf688. He's asked me not to change the dates to March 4th. GoodDay 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:citation
Thanks for asking. I don't work on that template anymore. SEWilco once created it, with the intent that it could maybe serve as single replacement for cite book, cite web & Co (which I've taken off from my watchlist anyway). I just continued tweaking there for some time trying to carry the idea further. Please feel free to propose anything you like on the talk of citation and see if others have any interest on that. I don't care anymore. --Ligulem 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Clackmannan category
Hi. Would you mind re-instating my edit to yesterday's CfD page, which was done in good faith. If you have any queries about the edit, I'm happy to provide details. Thanks SP-KP 21:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't mind you nominating it for deletion. However, I don't wish to CfD-nominate it myself, having thought some more about the category. Could you reinstate my edit please? Thanks. SP-KP 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Is that a more standard way of withdrawing a nom? SP-KP 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - that was helpful. I'm still learning new procedural stuff even after having been here for more than a year. 10000+ edits does not a wiki process expert make, clearly! SP-KP 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Terms
Then why does the bioguide, which is produced by the U.S. Government, say all the terms end on March 3?It should be noted, for those who were elected after the 20th amendment was passed, the bioguide says that all their terms begin and end January 20 or January 3 for Presidents and senators/congressmen, respectively.--tomf688 (talk - email) 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the request "please stop reverting", I, in turn, ask you to please stop adding or encouraging others to add this information until a thorough discussion has taken place and these additions can be properly sourced and confirmed.Or, if you do make changes, please cite the article in question in the edit summary for others to see as well.Thanks.--tomf688 (talk - email) 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All I can say is, 12 hours of Presidential & Vice-Presidential apparent vancancies, just don't seem to add up. GoodDay 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article on John Adams claims that he officially signed the papers just before the expiration of his term at midnight.This whole "March 3" thing is prevalent throughout the entire encyclopedia, including articles about senators and congressmen.There really should be a serious and long-winded discussion in a public place about this before any changes are made. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I emailed the House and received this reply, which seems to have some relevance for this issue:

Hinds Precedents (an earlier version of House Rules) is an authoritative source on the procedure of Congress. The following passage explains the March 3rd/March 4th dilemma you expressed for the House of Representatives. The passage expresses the legislative day (not calendar day) of March 3rd does not end until 12:00 on March 4th.

Hinds Precedents, Vol. V, Chapter CXL http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house/precedents/hinds/vol5.html ocid=f:hinds_cxl.wais Sec. 6698

After debate the Speaker \1\ held:

This point of order has from time to time been made in the history of this country, and was the subject of enlarged discussion by some of the ablest men the country has ever produced; such men as Mr. Benton, Mr. Cass, and others. The Chair supposes the practice of Congress in this connection is based on the fact that it does not recognize the calendar day, but recognizes the legislative day. The legislative day of the 3d of March does not expire until 12 o'clock noon on the 4th of March. Practice construes the law. In 1851 this question came up in the House of Representatives, as the Chair is advised, on a resolution offered by the gentleman from Georgia, who is now a Member of this House [Mr. Stephens]. On the 3d of March, 1851, Mr. Stephens offered a resolution to test this question, and on the ruling of Speaker Cobb it was decided that the Congress expired at noon \2\ on the 4th of March; which ruling has been in effect ever since.

Keep in mind that in modern Congresses, the Congress generally adjourns in December for the session and does not reconvene until the next Congress begins.It is still the previous Congress until the new Congress convenes.

Office of History and Preservation

Office of the Clerk

U.S. House of Representatives

--tomf688 (talk - email) 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks, we've tried very hard with this, so I'd be surprised if it was something as simple as that. If you have any references for this could you put them on the talk page so we can check them... I believe Wilkinson is fairly well thought of in this regard. - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks :) What do you think of the rest of the page by the way? Incidentally, if you ever come accross anything (references etc.) to do with the "Balkan Federation" movement please drop me a note on my page. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers, again, this kind of thing is a constant problem on Macedonia related pages, which is (ironically if you will) what this page was set up to try and clear up ;) - FrancisTyers · 01:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - FrancisTyers · 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had posted this in Fran's talk by mistake yesterday:


 * Hi, I just saw all this (Fran's talk, FAC talk, article talk, your talk, history template, article itself). I'm the one who copied all this from the M-(region) article. I must admit I haven't read Wilkinson, apart from the parts already included. Please, if you have the time, kindly copy some text that was left out in the article's talk, so that we include it.


 * Re history template, again, that was specificaly quoted by Wilkinson in the M-(region) article. Was Macedonia a constant stable well-defined "set of administrative units" as you said to Fran, or was it an arbitrary region until end 19th century, and after that it was defined to include the smaller units you have stated in the article? In any case, feel free to modify the "misleading" statement about "rarely used on maps", by enriching it with your additional info.


 * Finally, "Macedonia for the Macedonians" by Gladstone. To which "Macedonians" exactly does he refer to? To the regioners collectively? To the Greeks? To the contemporary ethnic ones? To the Blagoevgrad-ians? To the Aromanians? To the Albanians? Can you clarify that please?


 * Goin' fishin' now... I'll be back later to check... :N i k o S il v e r:  13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it fills some gaps in our communication. :N i k o S il v e r: 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

hello again
Since you seem to believe my post on The Guardian as "my opinion" and "just some blogs," I'd encourage you to read my comment on User talk:Daduzi. Tchadienne

Re:Nicknames
You are missing (IMHO) 2 points: 1) Naming conventions (common names) (the nicknames are most common then their lack); 2) Naming conventions (precision (the nicknames make precision and understanding more easy: if you have 3 or 4 'Johns of Poland', numerals are helpful, but it is much easier to disabiguate and remember them withnicknames. Personally, it takes me 'few seconds' to answer the question 'who was John I' or 'John III', but I can instantly recall who was 'John (I) Albert' or 'John III Sobieski'. Perhaps this is not the case for English, French, German, Spanish or whatever rulers where considered when the original NC for rulers where made, but it makes lots of sense to adjust it to use nicknames with Polish monarchs (almost all of them have them, and almost always they are more often used then not).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.Ralbot 05:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Category: Game design
I noted that game design articles tended to be in either category:Games or category:Computer game design.I created category:Game design for more general questions.Can you help identify and recat articles?Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks
Hello. Please respond here. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  16:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd reference
Hiya, I noticed that you'd removed the unreferenced tag that I placed on the Frederic Wood Jones article, and replaced it with DNB, s.n..Can you please explain what that means? --Elonka 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fairly standard form for the (Oxford) Dict. of Nat. Biography, under the name in question, since it confirms most or all of what you wrote; feel free to expand. (and to comment on my RfA, if you like.)Septentrionalis 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, standard where?To my knowledge, the string "DNB, s.n." does not appear anywhere else on Wikipedia, and a global Google search doesn't pull up much either .Also, though you said that you were confirming "what I wrote," I didn't actually write anything on that article, I just tagged it as unreferenced.In other words, I believe that it was inappropriate to simply pull an "unreferenced" tag off an article, and replace it with something incomprehensible especially because there were doubts about the "hoax" nature of the article at the time. Anyway, could you please try to provide a better reference?Thanks. --Elonka 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois -> Chicago vote
FYI, there is another vote to change the name of the Chicago, Illinois page to Chicago. See Talk:Chicago, Illinois --Serge 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.Ralbot 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

People by religion categories
Thank you for voting and comment at the Category:British_Anglicans CfD. Whereas it seems now achieved to have (nearly) no direct article inclusions, IMHO the subcategories doesn't restrict themselves to cases of notable connection between person and faith. In addition the category headers still include the paper-faith-clause.

Whereas we differed regarding the question whether to delete the categories, we seem to agree in wanting some focus for them. Are you interested in building a temporary cabal project for cleanup and convincing others to cleanup these categories?

Pjacobi 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Kingdom
In the discussion about this article you stated:

"I am not comfortable with the present name; but the replacement is not a proper name, which is WP style for articles. It could go to WP:RM without specifying a replacement...."

May be I'm missing something important, but why is Regal period not a proper name? And could you please tell me exactly where I have to read the WP policy you are citing?

Thank you for the help. --RiccardoRB 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcontinental nation move request...
...at Talk:Transcontinental nation -  AjaxSmack   08:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Goce Delchev
I suppose that counter-proposing a move to Goatse Delchev would violate WP:POINT.The argument that the pronunciation of "Goce" is less than transparent is a good one and worth considering.Your racconteur seems dense about the distinction you are making between name of the person and name of the town.Where multiple languages are concerned, that is always an issue. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.Ralbot 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great FAC
Hey, there. I've responded to you on the Cyrus the Great FAC page and made some changes to the article. Please take a look when you get a chance, thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Featured article candidates/Pericles as well. Various users have tried to take care of your concerns and wait for your response.--Yannismarou 08:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merlin
Please either explain the cleanup tag or remove it; cleanup tags without indication of what you want are useless. Septentrionalis 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did explain it, on the talk page. It doesn't meet the style guideline for disambiguation pages, which shouldn't be too hard to see.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Complaint Aug 2006
On Aug 22 2006 this editor grossly vandalized the Jay Treaty article by removing long stretches of narrative, analysis, quotations from scholars, and most of the bibliography.It was replaced by a simplistic summary from an old (1969) textbook -- despite the Jay Treaty being one of the main political and diplomatic events in the early history (1790s) of the US.Rjensen 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a lie, by an editor whose hagiographic approach to history and whose inexcusable personal attacks are noted elsewhere on this page. His careless reading is exemplified by his adding this noticeto an archive page. Septentrionalis 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)