User talk:Relata refero/Archive 3

Your comment...
... has a reply. FT2 (Talk 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Sati and Jauhar
Hiya mate,

I noticed that you made similar edits to both the pages, namely removing the book sourced information. Before this turns into a 3RR problem or an edit war, I want to know your opinion in this regard, since a book cite is usually quite accurate. Do u have any specific doubts regarding this book (you can read it at ) or the author (who has written other books on Indian History - see ). This is what his profile says:

Dr. S.R. Bakshi is an eminent scholar of History and is the author of several works on Indian nationalism and freedom movement. A renowned scholar of history, Dr. Bakshi was working with Indian Council of Historic Research (ICHR), New Delhi till recently.

Hope to hear your opinions. Thanks

Cheers. T/@Sniperz11 editssign 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User thanked on his talkpage; followed up on article talkpage. Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I saw your points at the talk page. You make some excellent points. However, I would like to see a link to the exact text if possible. I cant believe that that would be written on the book without proper referencing and research. I think you'd have won this case, if you can provide the link to the book text, if its available online. A quote would also help nail it. Usually, we trust history books, although we shouldn't really do that. Unfortunately, its hard to get peer reviewed sources, and we just have to end up trusting books.


 * Just to point out, officially, ICHR is not a political organization. See for info about them. They are an autonomous organization, and act as a facilitator for historians in India, as well as provide fellowships for scholars. As it is, they are quite well known in India. Still, you're right about the governmental interference bit.


 * Thanks. Cheers. T/@Sniperz11 editssign 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

IP 63.196.193.225
Just to let you know one thing, that the IP 63.196.193.225 seems to be nothing but a troll. This IP is also making the edits hostile for me,. And User:B Nambiar, Fox News do not become reliable source.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom case
re your latest comments at talkMamtanmoreland/Proposed decision -

I looked briefly at Gary Weiss. I found some disruptive edits, some not disruptive. FWIW Newbyguesses - Talk 09:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan's RfC
I noted your comments directed at User:DemolitionMan. Given that there is an open RfC on his behavior, I suggest that you might consider commenting there instead. Ronnotel (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I've seen your input in such matters before. What do you think of this. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Move request closing at WP:RM
Dear Relata refero! On February 27 you posted a comment on WP:ANI/Move request closing at WP:RM. Unfortunately I was unable to participate in the discussion for a couple of days, and in the meantime it died when the ANI page was archived, so I never got the chance to answer your comment. Now, i'm not sure what you meant by it, but since you probably think that that move requests at WP:RM are handled properly and fair are as important as I think, you are most welcome to join the discussion at WP:ANI/User:Philip Baird Shearer. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi pleased to meet you. On the Mayawati Kumari the previous section is not neutral and a neutrality check has shown this, I and other wikipedians have added cited sources that are correct and verifiable. I have reverted the change you made. If you wish add anything please add it the current version and I have also put back your image you added. Good image by the way, you are good photographer. Thanks.--Jiff5 (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look.
 . KBN (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your advice on White Order of Thule. I notice you mentioned scholarly sources, plural. Would you mind if I asked which ones, apart from Goodrick-Clarke? They do seem to be rather thin on the ground, although I expect one of them will be Gardell's Gods of the Blood which I hope to get hold of rather soon. Gnostrat (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, I've dug up some more sources now. Cheers. Gnostrat (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JP SK rally.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:JP SK rally.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My edit comment in adding the tag: "Stupid bloody bot. When an FU rationale has been written out, it shouldn't be difficult to add the tag, should it? Lazy programming." Relata refero (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Relata, for your participation in my recent RfB. Even though you chose not to opine, I appreciate your participation and if you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I owe you an apology; sorry, -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits
Firstly, thanks for your efforts in copy-editing Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. I appreciate your contributions. Furthermore:

"who ends as one of the victims" or "who ends one of the victims" - The latter suggests to me that he kills one of the victims, which is not the case here. I wasn't sure about this. Can you please clarify on this? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Hello,

Please feel free to join the discussion here []. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank U
Thank U for your interest. I agree this article has many many errors. I have given this article for peer review. May this article improve. See you there.-->>>Kensplanet (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fork articles
There are two fork articles Islam and anti-Christian persecution and Historical persecution by Christians. The discussion is getting tiresome.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Causes of the Indian rebellion
Thanks for adding some great references to the section. I am planning to rewrite that section in a few minutes and will do it in two passes: one today in which I will only use text-books and some standard monographs, and then another one tomorrow, in which I'll fine tune it with citations from papers etc. You many find some of your citations temporarily disabled, or perhaps replaced by more standard citations. For example, the Rudolphs are great political scientists of contemporary India, but for the mutiny there are more standard references (even text-books) written by historians of early modern India, specifically the mutiny (Stokes, Mukherjee, Metcalf, Bayly). Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just saw your post. Thanks for the refs.  Absolutely.  I was meaning to incorporate the "clash of knowledges"  (both the Indian response to Public Instruction of the 1830s and the evidence from the political pamphlets) anyway.  I agree that some material is better suited for "nature" of the revolt, rather than causes.  But the page is locked now.  :(   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
You are often seen venturing into politically troubled waters. Can you look at Soman and me quarrelling over an article on a fringe group? 59.91.254.21 (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, though what an absolutely dreadful thing to say.... Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Latina
I love your username, Relata refero. I was trying to figure out what it meant, and it was fun when I suddenly realized that the two words were forms of the same verb! I remembered "fero ferre tuli latum" from high school. I looked up "refero" on Victionarium Latinum and it said "portare rem rursum" (carry something back) which makes sense since fero means carry, and also "de rebus vel eventibus dicere, res describere" and for some reason I focussed on "describere" and at first I thought it meant describe, then I thought it mean write down. (Maybe I was getting off track there.) Anyway, I got the meaning "I record in writing those things that have been recorded in writing" as my translation, and I thought that described a Wikipedian's task very well! Perhaps it doesn't specifically mean in writing, though. I don't know if I'd ever noticed before that "relate" and "refer" both come from the same Latin verb.

I would say that it's a particular type of polyptoton: one where the two forms have different roots. A similar structure can be achieved in English (although with a different verb, different forms of it, and different meaning) with something like "The goer went."

Being a neuter plural, I suppose the -a ending doesn't imply that you're necessarily female, as some people may have assumed.

By the way, on your userpage I think you have "Relato" where you mean "Relata", and "referro" with two r's where you mean "refero".

I'll have to come back and have another try at reading that ancient Greek quote! I can understand a little of it already. Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reaction in Britain
Hi, This is a friendly note. I think the material is fascinating, but it is probably a little off-topic in an encyclopedia article about the rebellion. Both Britannica and Encarta don't mention reaction in Britain, and certainly not literary and cultural fallout. I think political reaction in Britain would be more pertinent. My understanding is that most other sections are summaries of individual articles, whereas, here, the parent article doesn't exist. Finally, my understanding of encyclopedia articles is that they usually don't reference very recent scholarship, preferring instead material that has withstood the test of time (i.e. of scrutiny and criticism). As it is, the article is already > 60 KB of prose text, when it should really be around 40. For example, my main goal in the sections that I am working on is to first reduce their size. Let me know what you think. Maybe there should be a discussion on the talk page on this. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... disco spinster   talk  23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Khoor
Thanks for picking that up. As for the question: ''I notice that your userpage announces that this is an alternate account and won't get involved in policy. Did you always have that attitude, or is it since December last year?'', I'd be happy to answer it... if I understood what you mean! But maybe I can give you more details. This is the only alternate account I ever created. It was created in mid-January and, at the time, I informed a checkuser for full disclosure. At least one ArbCom member is also aware of the connection with my other account. Like it says on the userpage, I will not use this account for policy discussions, RfA discussions, ArbCom elections and so on. I do however use it occasionally for AfD and CfD discussions (for the most part because I end up using it routinely to start such discussions). Hope that clears things up. Pichpich (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't followed the debate at WT:SOCK (in fact, I wasn't aware that there was such a debate). If you look at the history of my userpage, you'll see that I originally wrote something like: I won't edit project space. As it turns out, I realized pretty soon that this was impossible since I do mostly categorization of uncat articles: a significant part of these need to be sent to AfD and I also end up noticing problems with category names or improper categories which brings me to CfD. I haven't really given much thought to the actual wording of the sock policy. From a practical point of view, alternate accounts which are used honestly don't pose any problems and in fact they're basically impossible to notice. What I would like to see is a less forgiving attitude for people who use abusive sockpuppets: whether or not they're aware of the actual policy, they know that what they're doing is wrong (as in morally unacceptable). It is, for instance, beyond me why Mantanmoreland wasn't blocked indefinitely after being caught once by checkuser. I don't really want to get into the reasons that drove me to create the alternate account but it really has nothing to do with on-wiki disputes. My main reason for disclosing it to a checkuser is that my other account is an admin-account and so the risk for abuse or appearance of abuse is much greater. Disclosure just felt like the right thing to do: I would hope that any other admin using an alternate account would do the same and this would be a reasonable tweak to the sock-policy. But policy or no policy, editors who want to abuse the system will abuse it. Though I can guarantee that this will never come close to being implemented, I think a checkuser bot would go a long way towards preventing abuse. In hotly debated RfAs (Danny's, Elonka's, etc.), systematic CUs were performed and I don't see any good reason to not do this on every RfA (or even XfD). Doing this with a bot has the advantage of avoiding the privacy issues since it would only report to the checkusers the suspect accounts which could then be examined more closely. But this won't happen, so we'll always have to rely on ad-hoc methods and hope that this abuse is too small-scale to pose a serious threat. Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Toddst1
Hi Relata refero, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya needs lessons on how to 'be civil'
Is there no way to end the harassment of users on Wikipedia. user:Fowler&fowler, user:ncmvocalist, user:Sundar, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE (TO NAME A FEW) are fed up with his behaviour. - A concerned fellow
 * Wtf? harrassment? from that poodle? Don't be an idiot. Fed up, you say? Right. But he licks enough asses (Yellow Monkey, Poopington & co.) to ensure his safe passage here for the time being. --Dickdasher (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

brainless or what?
How can it be undid revision of yours? Is Nambyaar is brainless or what? -- Harjk   talk   09:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FA
I saw your comments on the Roman Catholic Church FAC. I am experiencing similar frustration and I have had a poor opinion generally of the overall quality of FAs for similar reasons for some time. In my experience, outside of MOS issues, GAs seem to be held to higher standard (on average, as GA reviews can be quite varied) than FAs. It does raise the question: What can be done to improve the FA process and the quality of FA articles? I have not had any good ideas. Do you have any thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you come up with any good thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia map
Hey, why not? Just because it's a ludicrous conspiracy theory doesn't mean it can't have a map. I had it in mind to replace a silly "Eurabia flag" which somebody made up and posted there, citing a Google Image search as their source. The map seems to me to be a straightforward representation of what the article is talking about and thus acceptable. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Egermancy, egermancy! Everybody to get from street! The Mooslems are coming!
 * Seriously, I think it's an appropriate image, as it just presents what the Eurabia folks claim is impending. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, emergency! &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Well, you're wrong, of course, but I'm in too much of a hurry to correct you. Nice use of the unsupported Appeal to Authority and Passive-Aggressive rhetorical techniques, though. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If in a hurry, slow down. I'm sure none of us will see any measurable difference. And if you think telling you directly that your attitude is counterproductive is passive-aggressive..


 * Earth to Relato, come in Relato. A reality-check hint for you: what makes you believe that I do not have a life off of Wikipedia, one which involves appointments that one is running late for? You DO know that there's life outside of Wikipedia, right?


 * And if you think telling you directly that your attitude is counterproductive is passive-aggressive....


 * A quick reminder of your words, as you've apparently already forgotten them: I know its pointless to ask you for civility...


 * Do you need a further explanation of the connection between that phrase and my characterization of it as "passive-aggressive", or are you going to po-facedly claim that is "telling [me] directly"? Take your time, and I can fetch the butcher paper and crayons if necessary.


 * Oh, and before you hurry to criticize me for my attitude, perhaps you ought to slow down and read the talk page and contributions of whom I'm responding to. I'm sure none of us will see any measurable difference -- except the free pass you're giving him. Let me know if you need help with that, too. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Relata''. or Refero. Not Relato. Slow down and read.''

You know, I've already explained the "hurry" comment, and yet you persist in your mistaken interpretation. Not taking the time to read carefully yourself? Oh wait, you did, but have decided to pretend otherwise. Got it.

And if you're in a hurry because of off-wiki requirements - work when you have time.

I was responding to your dippy comment, or had you forgotten that, too?

Really, I can't imagine why you'd go out of your way to antagonise people

Really, what part of the term "response" is unclear to you? Perhaps you need learn the meaning of the expression "The pot calling the kettle black." Maybe I will need those crayons and butcher paper after all. --Calton | Talk 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SSP FYI
Hi Relata,

I was just over at WP:SSP and I noticed that User:B Nambiar (KBN) has opened a case on you at Suspected sock puppets/Relata refero. I didn't see where they had notified you, so I thought I'd stop by and let you know. -- jonny - m t  14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Always something new. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for your message. I guess with the lack of respect that goes on and some of the hypocritical behavior that is tolerated at some places but not at others. I've been on this site at different points for a while, and honestly i've seen people blocked for lesser things than I have, but some people blocked for much stronger things. I know how someone in power should act, and with RFC's on an admin who tells people to "fuck off" "quit bitching" and generally moody towards others. all it's going to do is push people away. Today I learned about Citizendium. I think it may be a better place to be. Uconnstud (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

voting
voting commenced here. -- Harjk   talk   06:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on your discussion and recent edit of User:Bakasuprman, do you think that he is a sockpuppet of User:B Nambiar? If you doubt so, just tell me one word likely or not likely. Rest I will do. Awaiting for your opinion. -- Harjk   talk   09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is likely given the acts of User:B Nambiar - User: Headmast ship is clearly a sockpuppet of User:B Nambiar.

I remember editing Marad incident [] and User:Bakasuprman and User:B Nambiar were involved in discussion. I have no other evidence though for this case! Zencv (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nabob article
restored to your userspace here. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru
Hello Relata refero. Thank you for your contributions to the article Jawaharlal Nehru. Today I was reading the article and I noticed that you made some good contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

pov fork?

 * Religious harmony in India seems like a laughably biased essay created as as a POV fork of Religious violence in India. How are rogue articles like this normally dealt with? I imagine any worthwhile content could be salvaged and merged into the latter article. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, actually Religious violence in India deals with a kind of take to bits issues and shouldn’t be merged either-way. There are some assholes edited these articles Religious violence in India, accumulating forked stuff taken from harmony and somewhere else to violence. That’s the reason why I placed voting section and currently the voting is in progress. Based on the result, I will take an appropriate action. -- Harjk   talk   04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Religious harmony in India is really a ridiculous article complete WP:OR and WP:CRUFT.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is the case we don’t need harmony article at all and I too was thinking of it after I read the article. It should definitely be deleted. I do agree with Dance With The Devil and Otolemur crassicaudatus. Therefore I’d tagged Religious harmony in India to AfD. Let public decide about it. I request you guys to participate in the AfD discussion. -- Harjk   talk   08:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

about modern Indian writers
Please see section 16 of Talk:Culture of India. I want your views. Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA
 Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

Ravi Zacharias
I edited the Ravi Zacharias article per your suggestions. We're ready to get look at again. Thanks for your input! Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing paragraph
If you insist on removing the paragraph about Canadian tourist's reaction after returning from Tibet (which the backpacker's response was not repetitive nor found in anywhere else in the article), you'll need to ask for consensus in the talk page. The citation was fully attached and the article is from The Australian. There is no argument for you to removing it just because you feel it isn't necessary.--Sevilledade (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He reported with The Times about his opinion, I think that amounts to considerate significance. It would be interesting to hear from personal experience of tourist who actually experienced the event; sort of a first-hand experience from third party view.
 * You wouldn't want to engage in edit war. Put your disagreement in the talk page, if editors agree with your removing the information and feel that it is insignificant, I'll be happy to remove it.  However, since it has already been on there, you'll seriously needs editors' consensus.  Remember, this is how we solve disagreement.--Sevilledade (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference was already on there before you removed it. It should be asking for consensus and then removing the contents.  I don't think it would be different than anything else that is already in this section.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is cited as an "opinion". It didn't mean to be an eyewitness response (which there are several on the article).  If you look over the article, there are plenty of statements of "opinion".  Just not a single one is from tourist who experienced the event.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put a consensus section on the talk page about this since you still haven't done it yet.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV
I see nobody has dropped by yet to remark on your closing statement at the Murphy DRV. Just thought that I should say - I didn't participate in the discussion - that it was pretty decent. An occasional step back to remember what we're doing is salutary indeed. (Plus I'm amused that after ChrisO's terrifying post on WP:AN it took the Cavalry, as it were, to step up and get the job done.)

Happy Easter. Relata refero (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir! I'm awaiting the backlash as we speak! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pipes
If you are referring to my comments at Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ I am not objecting, per se, but noting a similarity between CAIR and CAMERA. As for Pipes and others each case has to be handled individually, and I do not know about that particular topic opine, unless I am confusing the target of your topic? -- Avi (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the current 1535 edits on Daniel Pipes I seem not to have even a single one. Perhaps you are confusing me with User:Avruch (again [[image:face-wink.svg|25px]] ) -- Avi (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [[image:face-grin.svg|25px]]. Twenty-five lashes with a limp noodle. -- Avi (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ( and supporting my next RfB - or is this canvassing, YOIKS!!! ) [[image:face-wink.svg|15px]] -- Avi (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Prabir Ghosh
FYI Abecedare (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it Del/Kee/Neu?
about the comment in the AfD? please re-edit it properly with bold text in the beginning (I think you missed it ...if not, ignore). -- Harjk   talk   06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious
Relata, can you tell me how it was you found your way to the Hamas talk page, and to the thread in which I was commenting? Thanks in advance. IronDuke 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it "help"? Well, since you can't remember why you went there, I guess it doesn't. The reason I ask is that I some people have been following me about, which is not only very annoying, it's not allowed. I hate to hurt the feelings of someone like Aminz, for example, as he clearly admires my work and is eager to add his opinion right below my own, but I'd just as soon discourage it. Not saying you're doing that, but I did have to ask... IronDuke  00:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It may yet come to AN/I, although that is not my first choice. Generally, I like to discourage people from following me about "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." This includes following me in order to gainsay my talk posts. If it happens once or twice, I'll let it go. If it gets to be a habit, I'll take further steps. IronDuke  22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. I have found, however, that once I'm on record as saying, "Please stop following me" and the behavior continues, that's usually enough to get an on-the-ball admin to stop by the nascent stalker's talk page with a friendly reminder. IronDuke  22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've piqued my curiosity now. When has this happened to you? IronDuke  22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will say now that I indeed suspected this. You weren't exactly acting like a n00b. I take it you and I have never come across each other in the past, Master Po? IronDuke  23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

glad to support
I'll be glad to support efforts about that group of speedy deletions of assorted criminals, at least for some of them, but don't have time this week to look for better sources. DGG (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

howzat?
Any way, we would like to make it very clear that we have our comrades assigned to handle Wikipedia content and for sure they will see to it that it does not miss represent the party ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.110 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 Mar 2008 OK, I'll keep an eye on it. I presume the anon is worried about CoI. Relata refero (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you have a look at Sambhunath Naik and Probodh Purkait? 59.91.254.21 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PLA in Tibet
Hi. Since you seem to have a level head, and because you've contributed to this article, I would really appreciate it if you would chime in on Littlebutterfly's edits. He/she seems to see it as a patriotic duty to portray Tibetans as brutal and Chinese as heroic, which is bad enough, but his/her edits are also generally nonsensical. So far I've been the only one reverting them, and I am pushing my luck with 3RR. So, it would be great if you could help out. Thanks. Alexwoods (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on User:BirgitteSB RfA
In response to your and another editor's comments, I've added some links in my nomination to two of her peer-reviews that I found particularly useful. I think these show an excellent appreciation of what is needed to make a good article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles related to religious history/organizations in India
The user User:B Nambiar often makes unproductive edits to the articles related to the above mentioned topic. Also some suspected sockpuppets by him. Have you ever had anything similar by this user? Greetings - Zencv (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some days back I'd informed Relata refero about it. See the section voting in this page (scroll up). In my opinion, this disruptive chap contributes not only unproductive but to spoiling the system. It is definitely a deliberate attempt. -- Tomb of the Unknown Warrior   tomb   10:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping me informed, I'm sure a lot of people are watching his edits now. Hopefully he will cut out the unproductive ones. Relata refero (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want to say/act something about it? -- Tomb of the Unknown Warrior   tomb   10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Hot200245 (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Suharto
Your edits at Suharto and your contributions suggest to me that you need to slow down and look more closely at what you are removing. regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? If that's the accepted academic figure, which it might be, get an academic source, please. Don't use partisan magazines that fail WP:RS, especially in the lead of the article. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You removed two references in your haste. Look closer at what you removed, and what I restored.--Merbabu (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to John Prados of the Natl Security Archive, the estimates range from 78,000, an internal Suharto government estimate, to over a million from Amnesty. Those figures should be in the lead, the details in a footnote. Relata refero (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you're quite right, the Asian Survey is more than acceptable, and I should have been more careful. Note, however, that detailed footnotes in the lead are best avoided, and there really is no reason to put CounterPunch in there leading the footnotes. Relata refero (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NDF
Explain why the source is non RS, and that a claim of a source being non-RS doesn't mean removing sources that include information you don't like? KBN (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the source not reliable? KBN (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason is available here. -- Tomb of the Unknown Warrior   tomb   09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kiche Maru sinking
I appreciate the vote to keep. It's not a typo. Yes, a lot of almanacs list September 28 as the date of the disaster, but it really did happen on September 22. Here's the September 26, 1912 newspaper article, the first mention I could find of the disaster, which had happened the previous Sunday. Even taking into account the international date line, the Oshkosh paper couldn't have known about what would happen two days ahead of schedule. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Israel

 * It's been fixed. I had missed correcting a few of them. Epson291 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear RR,

Thanks for the comments on my talk page. I probably took a cheap shot or two at you earlier, or at least was a bit obstructive. I hope you understand - SamiHarris was a good editor - and I never had any idea he was related to anybody else. I really still do not understand ... Well, that's all water under the bridge.

I've had a whole series of attempts to do something with TA and related articles, some of them turned out a bit nasty - it's not an easy area to edit in. Please do your best, I'll be watching and will do my best if you need help.

Sincerely,

Smallbones (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

/* Brahmin and dozens of related articles */
Look here[]    for my answer. VJha (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Guru Granth Sahib
Hi,

Your removal of  as sole successor of nanak and gobind singh.. is without any reason. The hindu deities are not recognized as sole successor (of whom?). The Sc of india recognized the granth as sole successor of sikh Gurus (petition was files by SGPC, and no property dispute was involved, just to clear matters), and also it is called The Grantha( large volume), it is not a book, it is a large volume. Thanks. So, should i make necessary changes?Ajjay (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see talk and do the needful.ThanksAjjay (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seneca
Apocolocyntosis = "pumpkinification," as apotheosis = "deification." Le grand roi des citrouilles = "the great king of the pumpkins." A poor jest, I'll admit. Deor (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably did step over the line a teeny bit in the RFA; but people who find it necessary to argue against every single user whose opinion differs from their own really grate on my nerves. I prefer to simply register my own opinion and leave it at that. And LGRdC's remark was not just a response to my question; it contained a clear implication that my opinion was not "constructive." Deor (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I started to worry about everything that's wrong in Wikipedia, to say nothing of the Internet as a whole, the men with the white coats would be at my doorstep in no time. I just try to do my minuscule part to ensure that a few things are right. By the way, have you actually looked at the article whose deletion is under review? It seems to me a clear case of "it's better to start over." That, in addition to my wikilawyerish objections to the reasons expressed by the nominator, is why I !voted to endorse the deletion. YMMV, of course. Deor (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I was the inititiator of the discussion, I cannot just let editors get away with voting in a discussion, because they want "in popular culture" articles deleted. Thus, I feel compelled to address such posts. And if it really is a discussion, then there should be dialogue and not just a list of endorses and overturns. To clarify my response to you... In the DR, you accused DGG of making a "slur" against another eidtor and wrote that to "assert that the opinions of the eight Wikipedians who thought that the article was worthy of deletion were somehow invalid seems to me disingenuous at best and insulting at worst." Thus, you made two assumptions of bad faith against two different editors in a row. You also wrote "by my count the !vote was 8 for delete and 2 for keep", but it is not a "vote", but a discussion, which is why the name changed from Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion. You wrote that there "is no evidence that the close of the AfD was faulty in any procedural aspect." An AfD in which at least (an investigation is ongoing on at least one other account from the AfD) three editors who were blocked for using sockpuppets disruptively in specifically "in popular culture" AfDs means that the procedure was indeed compromised, because we do not know what wait they were given. Then asking "so why are we here?" merited a response to explain or clarify. If you think my comment about you not adding anything constructive was somehow "incivil" it gets to the observation that in your posts you made two assumptions of bad faith, inaccurately referred to AfD as a "vote", and seemeed to miss the problem concerning multiple banned accounts who specifically used their various alternates in these types of AfDs somehow compromising the process. Then, you responded by alleging that "The main argument put forth by the nominator seems to be that he feels he didn't have a chance to bury that AfD in mountains of verbosity as he has done here," which is not accurate. My main argument is that the process was compromised by the disruption of sock accounts who were deliberately attempting to fix these types of discussions. My personal inability to participate further is a sub or secondary argument. Moreover, seeing a list of "I don't like 'in popular culture' articles" in the deletion review is naturally frustrating and I felt required a response. In a fair AfD not about process, I and others as Relata refero has praiseworthingly done would have focused more on finding sources and improving the article during the discussion as was done here. Finally, as a professional historian, who is in part interested in Roman history, bravo for the reference to The Pumpkinification of Claudius something I actually brought up in a lecture last quarter, of course, though, my username is only that of a king (roi), not emperor (empereur), but somewhat witty nonetheless! :) Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Some questions

 * Do you think that "anti-X religion" is similar to "Criticism of X religion"? Anti-Hinduism is similar to Criticism of Hinduism? Anticapitalism is similar to Criticism of capitalism? Anti-Zionism is similar to Criticism of Zionism? I know the criticism section of the article Zionism has several problems as it depicts criticism as anti. Anyhow the redirect should be changed later.
 * Don't you think the Category:Islam-related controversies has several problems. National Development Front has been included in this category.
 * Don't you think Fitna (film) should be included in Anti-Islam sentiment. A discussion is going on in this issue.
 * Don't you think this edit is inappropriate? Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation
Yes, you were wrong to speculate, you were wrong to assume bad faith, and you were wrong in your speculation. Category:Antisemitism belongs on articles that discuss Antisemitism in some way. Period. That is the only determinant of whether or not it goes into an article. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You assumed bad faith when you said "What would happen is that he would revert it, and then so would several other people in succession." First of all, don't speculate about me, period. That's not what Talk: pages are for. Second of all, it's bad enough you follow me around, and use half your comments to me to make insulting statements about me, but to compound it by making comments (like the one above) that are patently false adds insult to injury. Treat me with civility and good faith, and use talk pages for their intended purposes, per policy. And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. I hope that's completely clear. Finally, if I have time I will try to take a look at the article you mentioned, but I am quite pressed for time so I can't guarantee I'll be able to look. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, I notice you didn't say that that would not happen. I note also that you don't need to assume bad faith to have that happen. Think about it - its exactly what happens when you remove a cat against consensus. I understand your sensitivity on the point, but the way to get over that is not to try and see insult when there is none.
 * Note further that "speculation" is exactly what Talk: pages are sometimes for. It is difficult to plan anything without attempting to predict what other individuals in the same project will react.
 * ..half your comments to me to make insulting statements...:sorry, Jay, if you think they're insulting. But next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how. People will predict your behaviour based on your past, people working with you on a project will feel the need to discuss your probable choices and reactions if your editing schedule does not match theirs; you can't ban the latter, which is more than permissible, and changing the former will take more than a couple of messages ordering people around on talkpages.
 * I treat you with extraordinary civility, I treat you with as much good faith as I or any rational being could muster, and I don't see how stating a very likely response to a stated intent is not within the bounds of "Talkpage policy". I note that you have decided not to mention that what I was trying to do was determine whether you were being trolled or not, with a view to taking action if required. That determination is usually also conducted on talkpages.
 * And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. Jay, the whole point is that if your argument is valid, it need not always be used in your support. On the occasion I used it, it could effectively be used against material which you were defending passionately. (Even though you hadn't written it.) What I hoped to demonstrate to you was the inconsistency that some see in your behaviour, something which, without exception, all your fellow-editors here would probably like to see changed.
 * Thank you for your time, and do try and think about some of what I say.
 * Relata refero (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How much more explicit do you need me to be? If thestick had removed the Category from the article I would not have reverted it. Is that plain enough? Regarding your statement "next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how" - no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. It's an abuse of WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL, and I don't have to defend myself against statements that shouldn't be made in the first place. Discuss edits, not editors. And if it's a reliable sources or similar noticeboard, then discuss the sources in question, not other editors. And finally, regarding the "lobby argument", the relevant point is that "it need not always be used in [my] support", but that you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added to the Ouze Merham included a Chicago Times article discussing the controversy and the ABC interview discussing the award. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...I would not have reverted it. I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct.
 * - no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? I see nothing in WP:TALK to supports that view that mentioning other editors in perfectly normal contexts is outlawed on talkpages? If that's your interpretation, perhaps you should cut down on some of your  edits.
 * you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added .. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Except I used it in response to the statement "I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19", which constrained me to point out the number of those excluded by the Lobby Argument.
 * Jay, I suggest you admit to yourself, if not to me, that inconsistency is a bad thing, and that someone merely mentioning someone else (on-wiki) in neutral terms and not as an irrelevancy can hardly be a giant violation of our guidelines.
 * I am also interested to see that you think that reversion of the sort I thought it would be probable that you would perform is something you claim you would not do. Good, its a start. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct. Again, there's no need for these bad-faith digs. I have no "instinct" to revert someone removing the Antisemitism category. My edits are made with thought, and always with goal of making articles better comply with policy.
 * So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, - please do not resort to the Begging the question, it's quite disrespectful. I never made any such claim - quite the opposite.
 * your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? - well, to be honest, if you continually said complimentary things about me on Talk: pages, I probably wouldn't object. But in any event, use Talk: pages for their intended purpose, discussing article edits, not other editors. And use noticeboards for their intended purposes, discussing issues like reliable sources etc., not other editors.
 * Regarding the "lobby" argument, as pointed out already my arguments was that the secondary sources covered more topics than just the IHRC award, and therefore the article couldn't properly re-direct there. And if that was your point, then you could have made that point, rather than using obviously provocative language ("your well-known and extremely useful "lobby argument""). Your arguments should relate to policies, not other editors.
 * Regarding what I need to "admit", it's not actually relevant to me. On the other hand, I think you need to admit that using Talk: pages to make pejorative comments about other editors is inappropriate behavior, and that you need to stop doing it. That would be a good start. Please start now. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein
A noticed a comment of yours from March 26. Has Goldstein been debunked? What has replaced his research? Tibetologist has been recommending Goldstein to me and I've been a bit skeptical. Longchenpa (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Talk:Zionism
I thought you added a lot to the discussion. BYT (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary of others. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A Moral Reckoning
Hi Relata, were you still planning to do the GA review for A Moral Reckoning? Avruch  T 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read them over, I haven't had a chance to respond yet in depth. I'm not sure how quickly I can address the concerns - it seems like superficially I could address them by removing the incorrect mentions of "favourable reviews" -- it doesn't seem like the article is weighted towards a positive view of Goldhagen or his book, so I'm not sure how I should incorporate your other comments. I'll read them over again and reply on the talkpage hopefully today. You can fail it if you don't want to have it hanging out there. Avruch  T 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, and Moonriddengirl did a significant amount of work. Is the issue as you see it relating to the relative lack of response in the article from the academic community specifically? Most of it is from journalist publications and reviewers that aren't identified as academics. Care to comment on the changes in the article at the talk page? Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see how that would be pretty frustrating - the other folks in that discussion seemed to be talking around the question rather than at it directly. Still, if you are curious, I would say the fact that it has been modified after its original submission to usenet (presumably not in a new submission to usenet) constitutes a re-publication, in this case one that should be judged on the merits of the author and its new publisher rather than the prior one. Since the usenet issue at least partly is related to spoofing, is it reasonable to conclude that TalkOrigins would have confirmed the guys identity before allowing him to resubmit a modified version of his original post? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Noise? I guess I should be grateful yours was only one putdown. Noroton (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

CP
Just a request, please look at the article Communist propaganda. The article defines the term "Communist propaganda" as "propaganda by communist leaders, states and political parties". But a source is needed to clarify the statement. I found no definition of the term "Communist propaganda" in google. It need to be clarified if it is notable term enough or not. And please see the discussion Talk:Communist_propaganda. I will just request you to look into the matter.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neo Fascism & Religion
Please can you kindly refrain from deleting whole texts or give a valid reason why the information provided is not valid. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinophilia
I was somewhat surprised to see that you added a tag to Palestinophilia, firstly because there had once been one and it says If this template is removed, it should not be replaced and secondly because WP:PROD states that Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate and any article with the remotest relation to the Palestinians is bound to be controversial. I would be delighted to hear your opinions on the matter, and I have not (yet) removed the tag. Thanks, Keyed In (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm slow, but what exactly is straightforward? Do you believe that there are no people who are pro-palestinian to the point of clouded judgment, or that the term is not accurate, or used, or something else? There was quite a discussion about this on the Talk Page the first time the tag was added (which I still don't understand why you replaced after it was removed). I still think we could use a discussion for consensus. Keyed In (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK now I get the issue. However, what about an article that describes a concept about which there is a neologism. The concept of palestinophilia definitely exists, and a word exists to describe that concept, so why should an article specifically not use the name that is most commonly used to describe it? The only thing I see to be done is to change the focus from an article about the word palestino phobia philia to one about the phenomenon of pro-palestinianism. Keyed In (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But why pre-Herzl? Palestinophilia, in its common English usage, refers to sympathy w/ today's Palestinian groups and their interests. If you would like to suggest a merge with any of the "a lot of those under various names" that you mentioned, I would support it (though I would like a few examples of said articles). The term can then redirect there. I agree this needs some work, I just think PROD isn't the way to go. Thanks. Keyed In (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect is fine, but I don't thin it should be to History of Zionism. Ghits seem to point to many, if not most instances being about the modern variety, such as "blind Palestinophilia, being soft on terror and jihad, defaming Israel," et al. I am not certain if another article is necessary, but there should be some relation between this term and this idea. Keyed In (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Google books may be better, but there are two considerations to consider. 1. Zionism has been around for much longer than the Israel-Arab conflict, so there are obviously more books written on the topic. 2. Due to Israel's horrible skills at hasbara (and perhaps to other reasons such as anti-semitism), people are less likely to write a book about a pro-Israel topic. Maybe a disambig page would be better. Keyed In (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, take your time. Maybe also see if other editors are interested in reaching a consensus. (I'm relatively new here so I don't know exactly how to go about this.) I would also like to add that it is a pleasure to deal with someone like you, to have a civil discussion without an escalation of feelings that unfortunately happens so often here. Cheers, Keyed In (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <font color="CEBE70">MECU ≈ talk 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments
I just want to let you know that the ancient Assyrian quote you brought up in dab's talkpage was very offensive and I hope you refraim from using that in the future towards other Assyrians. Chaldean (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the curious, the quote in question is Byron's Sennacherib. Which is a little absurd to be offended by. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know where it is from, but it seems to me that you don't take other people's feelings into consideration before saying something. That saying has been used again Assyrians to justify the Assyrian genocide, in case you didn't know. Chaldean (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
About your result in third report, do please note that the user seems aware of 3RR. Did you intend the warning to make him aware that he was breaking rules, which seems unnecessary, or because you feel a warning would serve to end the edit-warring? Relata refero (disp.) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the edit warring has already ended (the article hasn't been edited in over 11 hours) so there's nothing to stop. Blocking or protecting wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it ended because they'd violated 3RR and knew it.... but no self-rvs. Just wondering whether that means that they would pick it up again when they got back online. Still, you're probably right, too stale. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Mills Mosque
Hi, Relata. The two main controversies were the size and the links to terrorism. The controversy about the links has been documented in its own section with multiple sources. i attempted to word the article in such a way so that the accusations and rebuttals are given the same benefits of the doubt, but I do not think that the article dances around the topic. I'd appreciate it if you can give me a concrete example so I can better understand your concern, and it may make sense if we continue this discussion on Talk:Abbey Mills Mosque. Looking forward to seeing you there! -- Avi (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Project overlap
Isn't this WP Israel and WP Palestine's additional project: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You have just violated the three revert rule on the Nehru article. Either self-revert or you will be reported to the noticeboard.--Agha Nader (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. One of my reverts was removal of simple vandalism. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Campus Watch
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. -- neon white user page talk 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I added was sourced to an academic journal. Please examine the diffs more carefully in future, and at least read the edit comment, in which I said it was sourced to an academic journal. I don't appreciate templates on my talk page. Relata refero (disp.) 07:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 90% of the info was not sourced and included personal opinions and biased synthesis. This was not acceptable. -- neon white user page talk 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Jennifer Lowenstein
Hi, Relata refero. Thank you for prodding me to dig deeper into my thought process on this subject. It turned into an excellent exercise in policy-sourcing synthesis. I have updated my opinion on the afd. Gwguffey (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ambitious university
i bit of topic, but i thought i'd share this with others; i came across the website of the Global Open University, Nagaland, a newly opened academic institution. reads "The School of Language Studies of The Global Open University, Nagaland has been established with the main aim of preparing a competent cadre of young professionals in the areas of russian, german, japanese, arabic, korean, burmese, cantonese, portuguese, dutch, swiss, swedish, danish, greek, latin, armenian, italian, persian, syriac, turkish, bhasha indonesia, bulgarian, czech, slovak, hungarian, polish, hebrew, mongolian, tibetan, hindi, sanskrit, pali, prakrit, ao, konyak, angami, sema, lotha, phom, zeliangrong, kuki, chakhesang, pochury, chang, yimchunger, khiamniungan, sangstam, sumi, tamil, telugu, kannada, urdu, punjabi, sindhi, assamese, bengali, bajjika, marathi, oriya, gujarati, malayalam, dogri, kashmiri, manipuri, konkani, nepali, nagamese, bhojpuri, bodo, garo, khasi, maithili, mizo, rajasthani, santhali etc." quite impressive. --Soman (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
i have re-written the intro and added some content in Guru Granth Sahib. Would you take a minute, and go through it, so that i can remove the Inline religion description Template. I am going to expand and improve the article, in the best way i can, if you can point out the discrepencies to tackle, that would be nice. ThanksShalimer (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Communist propaganda
You might want to change your opinion there based on what I have just added to the discussion. DGG (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal
Hi Relata refero,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here.

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. BJP
Definitely with you on that. I may have to rip into that article. John Nevard (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That Madonna Image on AN/I
Just FYI, they're breeding. There's now two copies of it, but both were denied speedy (clearly I write an unconvincing rationale...). I've taken them both to Copyright_problems/2008_April_5/Images. It seems the other admins just took the flikr guy's word for it. Bazzargh (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ignore that - User:PhilKnight has nuked 'em. Bazzargh (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just Barzun
Medawar, Cioffi and Crews, of course. Too bad none of them looked into "Religious Studies" -- outside Judaeo-Christianity, on which the Master himself held forth -- where "Freudianizing" (as one RISA-L denizen once put it) has found fertile ground. Just ran across this site. Enjoy. rudra (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Theory Noticeboard
This edit is in no way appropriate. Do not take your little story around to every noticeboard regarding the pages in question because it is only picturing you in a very poor light. I would ask you to please strike that comment, because it (the latter half) is completely irrelevant to the question asked. If you plan on jumping into these discussions, lets at least do it with some decorum. Baegis (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the concern expressed in your note, though I'm afraid I don't understand the last two sentences. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit is in no way appropriate. You are obviously bitter about not winning your argument for the exclusion of the Robison review of Behe's book.  While anyone is free to edit any area of WP, if you insist on holding some sort of a grudge because of the previously stated incident, you would be advised to avoid these articles.  Trying to purposefully steer editors away from certain articles because you had a bad experience is a poor decision and unbecoming of a wikipedian.  Baegis (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I lose arguments on WP daily, because I only tend to participate when there are good arguments on either side and I might make a difference to the decision. So no, I'm not bitter about "losing". As I said several times in the course of that nightmarish experience, I wanted to include something similar to the review, I agreed with the review, and I am a supporter of parts of usenet being useful sources in general, so it would be particularly absurd if I was bitter. No, what I am is bitten, and as a wikipedian I think it is necessary that others who might venture into those waters be warned of the dragons. Not everyone has my easy-going temperament. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it also appears that you are quite stubborn and completely convinced that you are free from error. So, whatever.  Just don't sully our articles with your poor attitude.  I came here to give you a chance to correct a small mistake but you have decided to turn it into the same battle as yesterday.  I do not think you are a bad wikipedian but your recent actions appear petty at best.  I am not going to take the bait and argue further but I would ask you to please avoid these articles because you seem incapable of editing them without stirring up trouble.  Baegis (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did notice the warm comradely sentiment with which you start this thread.
 * Thank you for accepting me as a not-bad wikipedian! I assure you that this not-bad wikipedian is not going anywhere near "your" articles. I am awfully sorry that my two edits stirred up so much trouble; I just want people to learn from my mistakes. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, don't let it grind on you. You're making a perfectly reasonable point. (I myself find it hard to believe that Usenet posts are necessary to provide criticism of someone so thoroughly critiqued as Behe.) Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WGI
You're popular! One Night In Hackney  303  15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I didn't watchlist all of them earlier. Doing so now. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the embezzler is back then, being backed up by his little friend Counter-revolutionary. One Night In Hackney  303  15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd already added him as Sussexman actually, since that was the original (or there's a case for User:Robert I being the original) account. Lauder was actually the last sock created (that we know of). One Night In Hackney  303  16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC I added him to the list about, oh, ten minutes after the ban was finalised. No champagne was involved naturally..... One Night In Hackney  303  16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pushkin-Mickiewicz
I can beef up Dziady with Weintraub's The Poetry of Adam Mickiewicz, which also deals a little with its relationship to The Bronze Horseman. Unfortunately, the most I've got to hand on the latter is a shortish introduction to an edition of the poem - but even so, there's lots of info there that isn't in our article. Maybe you have more material. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "that treasure-trove of critical thought, Progress Publishers". Heh, heh. Maybe not the ideal source. I'm looking around on Google books. --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinophilia
I can't access my email at the moment. I don't have any major objection to redirecting it somewhere else (and probably protecting the redirect) as you suggested if some of the content genuinely is useful - the close I made was purely based on the fact that practically all the refs and Ghits pointed to it being a neologism. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 08:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied to your email. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Have any interest in...
editing contentious BLPs? Could use more eyes. Thank you, as well, for passing AMR as GA. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeks

 * ...well, as it turns out your input was exactly what this section needed. I should probably apologise if I originally overeacted. But for a minute there I thought you were actually idealizing Fallmerayer's contribution and the importance of racial/ethnic continuity as conceived in the 19th century.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I 'd like to second that and say I am looking forward to more of your input on the article. As of now all your text is included in the modern and ancient section. Hope to see you soon. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
In response to your observation, Indians do in fact have a fetish with age, probably more than any other region. Not specifically referring to this case in particular but it frequently occurs in areas that I contribute to. Just ask User:Dbachmann and other editors frequently working in Indian-related topics. :)
 * DaGizza, some people of all cultures have some of that, I think... More on your talkpage in a bit. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Grin²
I have been doing it for a while now -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet
Someone has proposed a move back to the original title of this article. It would be great to have your input. Please chime in. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI
 Best regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)