User talk:Pmanderson/Archive 4

Pristina article
I think you failed to realise there is a survey already going on at the top of the page :) I reverted your edit. Feel free to contribute to the debate already started. Thanks, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 18:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooops! You're quicker than I. E    Asterion  u talking to me? 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pericles
I thought I should inform you that Robth gave Pericles a thorough copy-edit and proof-reading. I also gave it an additional proof-reading. I assumed you may want to check the changes.

I just donot feel well to see the Featured article candidates/Pericles closed without a final comment of you, especially after the debate we had. A debate which actually led to a further improvement of the article (according to my point of view). Thereby, I am obliged to acknowledge that I was unfair towards you and that your critical comments initiated these significant improvements. Whatever is you final stance (object or support), you have my sincere thanks (without any ambiguous wording, I hope, this time).--Yannismarou 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Presidential terms (March 3 vs. March 4)
Thank you for your helpful input at Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States. There has been a "March 3 at 11:59 vs. March 4 at noon" controversy on the presidential and congressional articles for too long and I've glad we've been able to assemble the evidence that should resolve the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Misophaes
This is Rich Dengrove on Psellos and his Misophaes. Am I up to finding a copy of Migne's Patrologia Graeca? That's a question. On the other hand, I am up to remembering that User:RDengrove doesn't work and User:Rdengrove does. I could have sworn I tested the link beforehand but I guess I didn't.

Signpost updated for August 28th


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 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi. I've been on holiday and didn't see the final result of your adminship nomination. You probably don't want any unsolicited comments, so I won't say anything except that I'm sure your time will come -- soon. Deb 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I must say, I don't see why anyone should have to thank anyone for being honest. Just go on doing your thing. Deb 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (terminology)
...you know the drill! :-) •N i k o S il v e r•  10:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Lee (army captain)
Thanks for the input on this move debate.--Shtove 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:RandyS0725 changes to classics articles
Hi Paul. User:RandyS0725 has been back making many changes to classics articles, etc. as is his right. We had had some concerns some time before about the nature and accuracy of the changes. Have you seen them ? Special:Contributions/RandyS0725. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)


 * Thanks, Paul, for the kind and helpful reply. I agree that Randy's edits are, for the most part, if not all, in good faith. I will leave the articles as they are with his modifications and change the minor bit when we have a chance. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hi Paul. Yes, I understand all you said. I will watch as best as I can, as I hope you will. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)


 * Rusty at best. Will look into the Zoe bit and if I can contribute anything reasonable. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Zoe (Spiritual Life)
This is up for deletion. This could use commentary from someone knowledgable in NT Greek. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
ROFL. Are you my sockpuppet, or am I yours? ("I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are.") Perhaps we are both sockpuppets of User:Master of Puppets. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC(GN)
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysytalk 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Userfication request
Hi,

Request duly fulfilled. :) If you choose to edit the thing, please keep in might the objection that the analogy is not exactly on point, as raised in the debate.

Incidentally, I really did have a girlfriend who lived in Canada. Seriously! :) It's amazing the sort of trash people that one can meet online. ;)  Obviously, she's now an ex... but not all of us ugly, pathetic losers who say this are lying. After all, Canada has its share of ugly, pathetic losers for us to date! Best wishes, Xoloz the lovelorn 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sept
Thank you for gradually toning down your comment, and sorry for sounding a little harsh in my previous comments. I really don't see why we have to disagree on this. Please read my comment and respond. •N i k o S il v e r• 12:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I am making an attempt to reasonably understand what your objection for the map is. I sincerely have not understood why you keep calling it 'tendentious' (because that has to be the point, as 'garish' is subjective and even if you believe that, we won't go anywhere discussing it). Care to explain please? I know this tires you but at the same time I know that you strive for making the article better. I am willing to do anything possible to make it NPOV, but I really see not even a hint to nationalistic/irredentist stuff. (keep it in your talk for continuity please). •N i k o S il v e r• 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it tendentious because it harps on the claims of a handful of irredentists. In the template, this is accompanied by a repetition, and so emphasis, of material already in the text of both articles. On the Main Page, it would bring undue emphasis to a deservedly obscure definition of Macedonia. (Your very nice fourfold map, with the caption "if it weren't confusing..." would be much better there.) Septentrionalis 22:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just copied your comment here for continuity. Hope you don't mind. If you do, continue the talk in mine, by doing the same.


 * Not that I don't like your proposal with the fourfold, but it'll be too small for 1st page. Now let's get back to the map:


 * Where does it repeat those claims? The terms on the template are all scholarly, it just happens that they are reproduced by nationalists. The two issues are separated, or is there a link I haven't observed? •N i k o S il v e r•  22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS and sorry for possible edit conflict: I know it is subjective, but I like it mostly because of how it looks, not because of any nationalistic implication. •N i k o S il v e r• 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to add the maps to the sample page; but I've had trouble shrinking them to fit. If you can do that, we can interest the reader more, by showing that Macedonia has moved all over the place. (The details may be less visible, but the point will carry. Septentrionalis 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No edit conflict; and I'm sorry to hear that: My chief objection is that I don't like how it looks; although I really do find the caption unnecessary. Differences in national taste, I suppose. Septentrionalis 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, let's keep the talk in one place! How it looks: As I said, it's subjective. However, I'll give it a shot tomorrow. For now, let's suppose you like it too. Caption: Why is it unnecessary? What would you suggest in its place? •N i k o S il v e r• 22:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, making the caption smaller, as I see you've done since the TfD, is a big help. It gives much less impression of shouting over whether Aegean Macedonia is actually Greek Macedonia, and so on. But Aegean Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, and so forth, are defined and linked and footnoted right next to the map. Do they really need to have this done all over again? How about "[color] Aegean Macedonia, [color] Pirin M., ...", which should fit in one or two lines? after all, all it is is a color key. (I would have no objection to scare quotes or "Region called" if you think this gives too much legitimacy to the names.) Septentrionalis 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to illustrate that Aegean Mk is Greek Mk and so forth because it adds some kind of validity/legitimacy to the Greek dominion over that area (and so forth). I'm just adding it because it happens that scholars call that part likewise in both occasions. I wouldn't object removing the one or the other alternative term if that was your point. For the [color]-text proposal, I guess it would occasionally wrap inappropriately, unless we shrunk it all to 'Greek' text (ha!). As for the scare quotes, they are unnecessary. Nobody can be offended by scholarly terms (it says so below for the Greeks "Athens doesn't take issue"). If you believe we should remove one or the other name (pls tell me which) I think I know how to make the caption shorter: I'll create two columns; one for the Major, and one for the Minor. (PS. I'm also working on combining the history maps to see how they look this size). •N i k o S il v e r•  23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I had to pick, I'd keep Aegean Macedonia and so forth; because that's what we're defining. Septentrionalis 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:NikoSilver for the fourfold. •N i k o S il v e r• 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, unless you want it a bit larger; I take it that adding
 * "If it were not confusing, it would not have been Macedonia"-J. McCarthy
 * would be illegible? (It doesn't need sourcing, just the quotes.) Septentrionalis 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I guess I didn't like it, but that (again) is subjective. I really find the other option more intriguing for the readers ("Moved around? So what! - Partitioned among 3 nations? Hmmm, let's give it a look!"), but that is just my opinion, of course. You must admit that the colors in the geo version create more eye-attraction (...or I can hear you saying "Cat vomet would attract eyes too.") I'll give it a shot with Aegean and so forth, and I'll work on the map a little bit. I'll also try to make the fourfold option more attractive. Perhaps we could have a poll on these two options later in the article talk? •N i k o S il v e r•  10:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a new version for the history pic in my talk (hit ctrl-F5). : (a) Zoomed-in maps, (b) Added quote, per Sept. instructions. Guys, I try to cooperate as much as I can, but I really find this picture dull, and confusing in this size (which btw is already a little larger than usual tfa's). Sorry, I still prefer the geo version, and I am willing to discuss further to improve it, if that is possible... •N i k o S il v e r• 12:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also tweaked the original Template:Geographical Macedonia to remove more blank space from the caption; hope it's more appealing to you now. Moreover, I created another Template:Geographical Macedonia 2 which excludes the second names, and splits the caption in 2 columns, but I find we should not omit that information. Finally, I've been experimenting with the various degrees of transparency and other colors in the map, and despite my efforts, I can now positively confirm that this is the best color-combination we can have. Those colors are fashionable too; believe me, I know well (Fran knows why...) :-) •N i k o S il v e r• 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you tweaked the colors in the "geography" map? Either I'm looking at it with different eyes, or the colors are coming across less strongly. One point of detail: Is Athos really excluded from "Aegean Macedonia"? And if so, on what grounds? Septentrionalis 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or it;s that I happen to using a different computer in the same system. If this is it, be warned that the colors are unstable. Septentrionalis 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Athos, but being an autonomous region, I thought it was excluded from Gr Mk. Now from Aegean Mk, things are a little complicated. Truth is I don't know, and I suspect that reference will not be easy. I propose I remove the border and color it as well, so that nobody notices.


 * Colors: No, I didn't upload any tweaked image. They were like that before. I, myself, use 3 pc's and haven't seen any difference. Maybe you like them because fashion is catching up with your rigid mathematic mind. :-) Download NASA's World Wind (that's where I got the map from). It's like a free Google earth, if you know. You'll be able to spin around the globe with your mouse and zoom it with the wheel to see the roof of your house! The moon too! It's really worth the installation... •N i k o S il v e r• 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pharmakos article restored to previous version
Hi Paul. Anonymous editor User:71.255.92.56 changed the gist and verifiability of the article on the ancient Greek Pharmakos which I had carefully researched and written into, some time ago. I restored the old version after carefully reading the new version many times and seeing some unverifiability in it, even though it seems to present as a "cleanup" re-write. It's just not that. The old version is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharmakos&oldid=78999545

I will be updating the article with more citations and verifiable text soon. Any thoughts ? Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

mediation
I moved your opinion up with the others. to make things more clear, i put it as conditional support, since you do not prefer Lar deciding by himself. Apologies if I've done anything wrong with the move, and feel free to re-arrange it or vandalize my own page. :_) just kidding.  ciao. Taalo 19:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re : Seventh Party System
No problem about that at all, I respect the discussion and always glad to have a review of my judgement from time to time. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Athens
I noticed you appear to have been one of the main contributors to the article on Athenian democracy. In the talk page of the said article, I recently posted a diagram representing the Constitution of Athens based on the Athenaion Politeia attributed to Aristotle. I would like people to comment on it before I propose its inclusion in the article on Athenian democracy. You can take a look at the said diagram here:


 * Image:Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png

Thank you! -- Mathieugp 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Would replacing "Electors" by "Voters" do the job?
 * 2. Military servants box: You are right. At some point I ran out of space so I created this box. I guess I can move stuff around a bit on the canvas and reinsert boxes for hoplites and horsemen.
 * 3. Le Council of 500: Doh! I'll fix this asap. :-)
 * 4. Heliaia as "Juries": Maybe you meant "Heliasts" as Juries? Right now, the names are a mix of Ancient Greek written using the Roman alphabet and English words, some with latin roots. I think for clarity, it is best to use English names whenever it makes sense. For the main institution boxes, I wrote "English name (Greek name)". For the smaller boxes representing "offices", I thought it would end up being too crowded if you know what I mean.
 * 5. Where is the best place to write that I made the diagram myself using Dia? Did you mean I should write that I am the author on the diagram itself?
 * 6. Judicial senate: I'll look for a better English term. Maybe reading the English translation of the Athenaion Politeia will help me out.
 * 7. The article Constitution of the Athenians suggests there is no solid evidence that it really is the work of Aristotle himself. The French article also mentions this. I don't know much about this issue myself so I cannot comment. -- Mathieugp 21:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I updated the diagram on the French language Wikipedia. You can see it here: fr:Image:Constitution-d'athènes-du-vivant-d'aristote.png It includes some of your suggestions. What do you think? -- Mathieugp 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:3RR
Thanks for your message. I've told Larry that I agree with your assessment of the 3RR report. I think he must have misunderstood something I said when I blocked him for 3RR. :/ Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't yell
I had workmen at the apt. today, so I let myself off the hook and edited Attribution. Let me know what you think. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Thank you for contacting me before going to DRV. I am aware that AFD is not a vote - if it was I would have closed it as "Keep". I consider the "no concensus" decision to be correct, as although the the delete arguments were not fully addressed, I could not see that all the keep arguments were addressed either, and there seemed to be uncertainty as to whether if it was deleted it should be redirected elsewhere and, if so, where. I believe these are matters that can be discussed on the talk page and resolved without the further requirement for AFD, but nevertheless the "no concensus" decision in no way precludes it being relisted at a later date. Cheers, Yomangani talk 15:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disregarded the OR claims concerning the fact that the Sixth Party System must have come into existence by now, but I did note Uncle G's point of Aldrich's claim and your own research revealing that articles had been written concerning at least the concept of a Sixth Party System. The claims made in the article may have been badly skewed toward the existence of a Sixth Party System, but I judged that would be a matter for cleanup or merging (as I stated in the closing statement). I have no problem with it being radically rewritten, redirected or merged, but I feel it would have been wrong to close it as delete. Yomangani talk 16:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks again for contacting me before taking it to DRV. Yomangani talk 16:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV
Please explain this edit. Why did you delete my !vote? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of name change of Skåneland
Please see Talk:Skåneland to discuss a possible name change. -  AjaxSmack    00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet of User:Panarjedde?
Why did you silently reverted the link from Alexandroupoli to tree and monk , which stood there for more than one year and a half, immediattly after the revert war I had with Panarjedde ? -- Bbb1992 Insert non-formatted text here

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article
Tobacman 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Cornell
Your notations on Paul Cornell (Chicago) almost felt like vandalism. I had gone to a borders this weekend and taken notes from the Encyclopedia of Chicago and other books. Today, I checked out the Encyclopedia of Chicago and will look more closely over the next few days. I am not sure what your complaint is about. I also think you should remove the quality standards tag, but will await your comment. TonyTheTiger 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See new response at Talk:Paul Cornell (Chicago).

See revision. TonyTheTiger 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the link to independent work by another wikipedian at Midway Plaisance satisfy your doubts. See section The South Park Commission plan. TonyTheTiger 15:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yogurt/Yoghurt
This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt and consider participating. Thank you. — Mets 501 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I'm slightly confused about your vote. You voted "Oppose", so do you mean you want it at Yogurt or Yoghurt? — Mets 501  (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Federalist Papers
See my response on Talk:Federalist Papers, I'd be interested in hearing in more detail your ideas for that article since I have all my books on it at hand as well as some time ATM. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

State Capitals
Regarding your change on Perth Amboy and Burlington being joint capitals of New Jersey: When you said that both towns "functioned" as capitals, do you mean they acted simultaneously as capitals, or did the seat of government rotate between the two towns like the Connecticut Legislature did between Hartford and New Haven? --MCB 10/26/06

Dee
I want to make clear to you that my only intention with John Dee article is to adapt it to current days FA criteria. Whether we like it or not (I do, by the way!) inline citations are a confirmed criterion and the implied or other ways of sourcing something you mentioned in your comments are not enough. You'll see that now that Yomangani did an excellent referencing job I changed my vote. My intention in FARC is to keep articles not remove them; but keep them in accordance to nowadays FA criteria. Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We obviously disagree in how a good article should be structured. I respect your point of view, but I totally disagree. I regard inline citations not as a waste of time, but as a gain of time.


 * If you want to use Pericles as a bad example, you can do it. I have no problem. The article is confirmed by the Wikipedia community, including you, as a FA. So, I'm Ok. If you want to use other articles for your purpose I can also mention some. Speaking of the articles I've edited, you can use Demosthenes, Aspasia or Alcibiades.


 * Once again, I honestly believe that your purpose is the improvement of the Wikipedia's article. But I think that yor way is not the right one. I totally respect your point of view, but I regard it as wrong and irrational. Cheers!--Yannismarou 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

More Dee
I wasn't taking offense, just pointing out that it was only cited because it was essentially zero cost in that instance. If a source is referred to by name and author in the text, I certainly don't think an inline citation is required, but if you look futher down the comments you'll see my rationale as to why I think inline citations are, in general, a necessary evil. Cheers, Yomangani talk 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kannada cities
Hey. You might want to move your vote from Talk:Bangalore over to Wikipedia talk:Indian Wikipedians' notice board. Thanks, Xiaopo (Talk) 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help. You gave me a good information for changing my name.

Greetings

Francois Haffner 07:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (you can remove this message)

AD/CE
"... the AD/CE edit war is another and clearer example. The wiki solution to the problem would be for anyone who was editing a sentence anyway to change the style if he objected to it, and otherwise to leave it alone. It is an elementary theorem of probability theory that the proportion of AD to CE would then reflect the proportion of people who prefer one to the other, and WP would achieve uniformity when the world does - and not before."

It is not a theorem of probability, or even true, that the proportion of AD/CE would depend on the number of people in the world who prefer each. It would be true if the number of people making edits were a random sample, and if no other factors were involved. But it is not a random sample. The group of people making edits is a very non-random sample, composed of those people who 1/ know about WP, 2/ know about the English WP, 3/ edit the English WP 4/edit topics where it is relevant 5/know about the difference  6/care about it in editing,  6/think it appropriate to change the form and 7/actually do so. None of these successive samples are random. Furthermore, there's another factor: the frequency depends not on the number of people, but the number of edits--it cannot be assumed that the ones who prefer each, would make an equal number.

And that's the point: the actual frequency is affected by a very small number of people who have the persistence to make many edits, repeatedly. That's general in WP: the result depends not upon personal views, or even personal views of those working on a subject, but the persistence of those working. A single individual can succeed in getting a totally unrepresentative view with a single dubious citation inserted into many articles, if more zealous than the opponents. And so they do. I fully believe in the representation of non-standard viewpoints, but with a clear statement that they are non standard, & of the approximate extent that they are non-standard among the relevant people. For example, I would not say that some Americans believe 9/11 was engineered by the US government and some do not, but that a very small but vocal minority in the US think so, and almost everyone does not.

as for AD/CE, I am of the CE/BCE school in theory, but I never notice it here or elsewhere unless the subject is events considered to occur in Palestine and surroundings during the 100 years before & after the destruction of the Second temple in Jerusalem. (I don't notice it otherwise, even in subjects of purely Jewish religious context written by those obviously Jewish.)

In general I'm with you, Pmanderson, as I hope is obvious. DGG 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for the comment on my user page. Yes, not all of the possible things I listed are really relevant. The language might have been: e.g. a country that uses another calendar altogether: I decided to look--although I can't read any of the relevant languages, I can recognize Arabic numerals. Many of the articles on Islam in the En WP use CE dates when they specify either, but,to my surprise, rarely converting to AH in parenthesis. What really surprised me is that in the Ar WP, those articles also do not convert to their own dates,(also not even in parentheses), which to me indicates a culturally very insensitive crude job of translation.
 * And all this is a very interesting side issue (which I know has been extensively discussed before). But my main point is the susceptibility of WP to zealots. I especially mind irresponsible or immature zealots for causes where I agree with them, who put up sophomoric arguments. They make me ashamed, but I know if I go into any of these subjects I will never come out. DGG 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary insufficient, to me at least
I'm wondering what you meant by "assumes equivalent statement; not a proof" when you removed "Proof by local linearity" from the L'Hopital's rule article. I'm not against the removal -- in fact, the proof is original research -- but I'm wondering exactly why the proof is circular. Would deltas and epsilons be required to make the proof valid? Thanks. -- Grace notes T  &#167; 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankfurt-on-Oder
So in the 14th edition of Brittanica, the Americana and my edition of Webster's Geographical Dictionary. Since the current edition of Britannica does not adhere to "Use English" as a policy it is of limited help here. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthäuspassion
Would this be better moved to St. Matthew Passion, St. Matthew's Passion or Passion According to St. Matthew? I've performed it under all three English titles. Similar question for Johannespassion. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Portuguese throne, presently
Have you checked the article Line of succession to the Portuguese throne ? It should presumably moved to "Miguelist line of succession to the Portuguese throne", or how? Can we allow that inherently problematic present name to any article? Marrtel 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should move the article back and then discuss a move. The new name is inherently controversial and inaccurate... Only one of the people on that page is a pretender. Charles 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because a throne is defunct doesn't mean that there can't be a line of succession for it. It doesn't need to be described in the article title whether the throne is defunct or extant. It is a throne regardless of its legal status. Now, even if the line of succession itself is controversial, additional lines can be discussed or presented within the article with the necessary headings. Charles 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Equally, or yet more, questionable assumtions of existence of thrones
As you seem to dispute "lines of succession" articles as controversial, I hint you to check all the articles linked to the following template: Order of Succession (Former Monarchies) (I am not sure where the template will take its place here in your talkpage, but you surely will find it somewhere here).

There are a number of articles about "lines of succession" today (not in 1910) which appear to assume that such throne exists. Welcome to check. Marrtel 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop arguing with a native speaker?
The native speaker of what language argues that "Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina" is AE usage? Uh, sorry, but as a native speaker of American English, I am going to argue with such nonsense. --Serge 06:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be insulting
It would really help the environment around here if you didn't call editors oxen, as if they're somehow beneath you. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded to at User_talk:Cyde/Archive013.

Democratic Republican sensitivity
Looking at your comment on List of Presidents, I think I'm beginning to see your concern with early party name usage. I have similar concerns vis-a-vis the use of "Democrat Party", and perceive that you want to ensure a direction lineage of the Democratic party back to the origins of Jefferson's party. I can understand that. I have simply been looking for unbiased, historically accurate labelling, and see why you might perceive that as being partisan. I can whole-heartedly assure you that is not the case. I believe the more that people read these articles, the less they'll view today's Republican Party as the party of Lincoln, a radical abolitionist (to oversimplify). Let me know if I am on target or 180 degrees off. If the former, shall we share a peace pipe? Skyemoor 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mentioned you were concerned that applying "Republican" to Jefferson in the List of Presidents would give people the impression that he and Lincoln belonged to the same party, even though a link would take them to a different article. Quite frankly, having the same party name for Lincoln and the current President would be the confusing connection to me, as Lincoln belonged to a radical abolitionist party condemned by Southern conservative religious leaders instead of a conservative party who draws support from corporations and wealthier individuals.  I can see that a person who wants to promote a particular party may be dismayed if another party's name is attributed to a President that their party recognizes as the party's founder.  Perhaps "republican" would work better in this instance.  That would give people pause, spark interest, and encourage them to follow the link.  Skyemoor 12:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

cities
That might be something. I'm not sure how to get anybody's attention, though, with the current state of the page and debate. Any thoughts on that? john k 17:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (geographic names)
Would you annouce that we think the proposal is ready to advance to a proper guideline at the places you think such an annoucement should be made? I concur we seem to be rather ready.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, same here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Unsigned question =-

You deleted my question to you because I didn't sign my name? Are my initials good enough? I don't feel comfortable putting my name on this forum. If my emails initials aren't good enough, can I leave you with my email address? If so, I will leave my email address tomorrow, and you can respond to that. Thanks. MCB
 * I don;t have any way to respond to you, unless you see this. No; please don't leave you email on WP. But there's no reason not to sign up as User:MCB ot user:MCB641, which is as anonymous as this post. Septentrionalis 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Thomas Jefferson
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Thomas Jefferson. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Thomas Jefferson). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments
Hi there, it is impossible to determine which comments are yours on the Thomas Jefferson page as you do not sign your comments. If you do not know how to do this, it is easy: just press the tilde key. On my keyboard, it is on the upper left next to the number 1 key. There are also instructions just below the window where you enter comments. Also, if you look at how other people have signed, that will give you the model for how this is done. Thank you. Skywriter 14:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my comments are not a template. It is not possible to follow your comments on the cited page. If someone has interrupted your comments and made them unreadable, you could ask that author to remove the interruption or place it following your comments in a manner that does not interrupt the flow of your argument. Skywriter 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Silver Certificate and Fair Tax
Two articles that I think you might find interesting for various questionable claims. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankish custom of the March Field
Hello Pmanderson, I removed some information from your edit of the History of democracy article per this guideline. The edit had a line about the "Frankish custom of the March Field". It has no source, along with no common source (Google can't find anything on it) and the link for March Field goes to the US military base. Could you please provide more information about this "march field"? I am very interested in it! Thanks, - Kevs 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about that. I looked at clause #2 instead of clause #1.  I put it back.
 * FYI: Currently the article March Field is a re-direct. - Kevs 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Burr-Hamilton duel?
I have always used (and recall hearing and seeing) Hamilton first, as the more famous person. What was used at the 200th? Do you have an opinion? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The page you gave me uses Hamilton-Burr throughout, so I am puzzled at your comment. I will look at the other pages presently. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP
Like most unsourced BLP's, Robert Edward Johnson is mostly accurate, mostly autobiography and mostly unsourcable and unimprovable. For those same reasons, it patently fails notability and vanity criteria. It should be a sure bet for deletion via AfD (unless extreme inclusionists intervene and the closing admin listens). While it is difficult to think how any of the information there could damage the subject, I think it better to simply insist on sources for all BLP's than to try to distinguish the defamatory from the rest. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tigernet is not an acceptable source. From the "Registration information."


 * Who is eligible to access the TigerNet Online Services?


 * Princeton University undergraduate and graduate alumni are eligible to sign up for TigerNet Online Services. Current students, faculty and staff can also access certain portions of the site using their University NetID and password.


 * Because it is only supposed to be available to alumni, staff, faculty and students, it is not published in the Wikipedia sense. While other unauthorized registrants may not be detected, they would be violating the terms of use, and possibly Federal law.  For Wikipedia to suggest even obliquely that readers commit such violations is among the most inappropriate things that I can think of.  I will add a note that registration is limited to alumni, students, faculty and staff.


 * Furthermore, the fact that there is a source for some facts in an article does not obviate the need for sources for the other facts, although it may obscure the unsourced nature of those assertions. This BLP would not qualify as a CSD, but it is clearly not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, on verifiablility as well as notability grounds.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So similarly Robert J. Johnson, prodded by me.Robert A.West (Talk) 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders
I observed that you have not yet expressed your opinion about my move request of the artcle, requested at Talk:Pretenders to the kingdom of Portugal. Could you visitb that situation, seeing that you have been previously interested in the said article's location? Marrtel 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

John Adams
If what he's writing does not reflect a historical consensus, that would certainly be fine. My opinion was only that if his claims are sourced, it's incumbent upon anyone who wishes to change or remove them to establish that either other sources disagree or that his writing is a selective or inaccurate summary. If that's the case, it certainly needs changing away! Seraphimblade 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair enough to me. Seraphimblade 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Interested?
Hi there! I've seen you have been a long-time constructive user among wide areas of Wikipedia. The mop crew could always use the help of a dedicated and interested editor. As such, would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? ( Radiant ) 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. We have had our conflicts in the past, but nothing for a long time, and from what I can see you do a valuable work. I would support you.Ultramarine 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see your previous RFA in august was rather strongly opposed, in particular because of civility issues. Do you believe this has substantially improved? What would you say to convince those people who opposed you last time to change their minds? ( Radiant ) 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Pigs Day
Hi. I didn't suspect you had any familiarity with YP Day. I'm not sure whether content would be better merged to Michael Spivak or to Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics but it certainly should wind up somewhere. I'm not an admin and don't have a copy of the ex-article, but I believe User:Samir was keeping a copy around somewhere. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: MfD
Thanks for letting me know; I've commented in the appropriate area. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres on WP:GA/R
Hello Sept/Pmanderson,

I'd like to apologize if I was excessively snarky on the WP:GA/R review of Homotopy groups of spheres. I was dealing with a nontrivial extra-Wiki stress-level  (taking 4 PhD-level classes plus one 200-level Chinese course; and it's final exams/term papers crunch time). I shouldn't have let extra-wiki stress spill on-wiki, but didn't realize it at the time. A minor positive side-benefit is that I have learned from the experience.

Best Regards, --Ling.Nut 19:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasting time
Clearly, I underestimate the demand for Samuel Johnson in search results. I apologize. P.S. do you have an opinion on the related matter Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation? TonyTheTiger 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:PR not sure which article you are referring to. Which of the articles on my user page are you referring to? TonyTheTiger 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. You should be aware that last week I won a similar Robert Johnson move by an 8-2 margin. I sort of thought this would fall the same way. I was not contesting whether he was the main guy.  I just though if the remainder agregate to 50% then they should be the direct link.  The policy needs to be more clear on whether that is what we should be debating.  In the future (maybe long long term, but eventually) we will probably be able to see click through history breakdowns I would imagine. By then such policy needs to be set. TonyTheTiger 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Did you actually say which side of the majority/plurality argument you are on? TonyTheTiger 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the humor of WP:PRO. This month I may apply for adminship. It gives me some perspective.  P.S. I am still hoping for an answer on 3 above. TonyTheTiger 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I got your reply about my inexperience. # of edits is a pretty tough rule to go by.  If you look at the tasks at the top of my list of things to do you can see that if I chose to pad my edit numbers I could easily produce 2 thousand edits a week just on stuff like the first two items on my list.  I don't think a raw number like # of edits tells you much.  WRT Johnsons and Cornell. In each case, at nearly the same time I made two move proposals one that was rejected and one that was accepted.  You seem to only be memorable in the two opposed requests, but Haystacks (same time as Cornell) and Johnson were just part of the bigger picture of efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I have made a half dozen or so Johnson dabs since Turkey Day (I entertained at Robert E. Johnson's widow and family on that day).  I have created a few dozen Johnson related articles, templates and categories (all listed on my user page) ranging from Robert E. Johnson to E. Normus Johnson and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr..  I believe you understand my S Johnson dilemna was that I thought he represented a plurality of desired Sam Johnson search results as opposed to majority given my major revisions of the dab.  P.S. As an aside do you have any statistics that would tell me how many previous applicants have been of Afro-American heritage or Latin-American descent. TonyTheTiger 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have figured out how to handle George Bush type problems. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. TonyTheTiger 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PR
I posted my first WP:PR thanks to your typo. TonyTheTiger 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am just realizing we have crossed paths at Paul Cornell (Chicago) before. TonyTheTiger 17:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop
I already addressed why I think characterizing a vote in support of Tariq's proposal as a vote to change the guideline is fair where you raised it on the talk page. I hope you find my answer satisfactory. As to your other request, fair enough. Please let folks know I've backed off per your request. Thanks. --Serge 18:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Dragan_Nikolić_(war criminal)
Thanks for contacting me. I did not notice the series of AFD nominations regarding this article, including its redirects. But I did notice that it had been moved to Dragan Nikolić (commander) (which effectively removed the POV from the article name), but since nobody expressed a will to keep it under this name on Articles for deletion/Dragan Nikolic (war criminal), I deleted it anyway. Good you brought this up, I usually pick AFDs to close at random so I had little chance to notice all the separate follow ups. I restored Dragan Nikolić (commander) only, the redirects containing "(war criminal)" I believe are to remain deleted for blatant POV. Please contact me if there's more about this case. Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Divisibility by 13
I think my words were "easy to calculate," not "obvious." I have a little Javascript that uses trial division and that factorizes 1807 instantaneously. Barely the eighth term might be taxing to my little program and I would have to fire up a heavy-duty CAS. PrimeFan 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

HagermanBot
The issue you reported earlier with HagermanBot has been corrected. Lines that are inserted before an existing signature by the editing user (example) will not be signed by the bot. Thanks again for informing me of the problem. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Matawan
P, I'm probably just being dense, but I'm completely lost in our discussion about Matawan. I've read and reread that section, and I just don't understand your point. If you're interested in helping me understand, you're going to have to spell it out for me. What do you think the names of the articles for the various place should be, what do you think they should not be, and, for each, why. Thanks. --Serge 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward R. Dewey article category
Why do you keep removing the categories for this article? Your only comment after doin g this twice is "include non-redundant cat" which makes no sense to me. He was an american economist as the article states, so why not have these categories?


 * thanks to your reply on this in my talk page, I will implement that. Ray Tomes 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you keep putting back "Much of Dewey's work made claims about Business cycles. This subject has been hotly debated;" which is silly. The question is "what claims?" as it makes no sense to say that unspecified claims are hotly debated. Ray Tomes 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You gave a reply non my talk page and I have replied to that there. Ray Tomes 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC