User talk:Tuckerresearch/Talk Archive 2010

Re: The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill
Thanks. Digestible (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyo
Hello, do you still use the NC manager? Could you give me some feedback? Do you need an update? · CUSH · 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Cush, I haven't actually used it in awhile (since I started writing my Ph.D. dissertation). I've been mainly just uploading the date information, for my scheme, instead of using the chart-making functions, etc.  Thanks for remembering.  TuckerResearch (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you make backups of your data every now and then... :-) · CUSH · 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Are you still using the NC manager? Someone from the Yahoo Group has contacted me about it (Jon Clark).&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used it in awhile (I've put chronology aside to work on my dissertation), but someone on the Yahoo Group asked if there was a New Chronology software, and I pointed the group to your examples on your Wikipedia user page. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help
Tuckerresearch Greetings from Liberty, Missouri,

Thanks for all the help over at Conditional Preservation of the Saints and Apostasy in Christianity--It is very much appreciated. I was not aware of some of the formatting issues that needed to be corrected. I think I have cleaned up all the "Ibid." in both articles, so maybe you can help in removing the box that talks about this. Thanks for the encouragement, a ton of research has gone into both articles. I watch both sites each day and seek to make improvements when possible. Do you think I need to redo all the reference notes (i.e., how they are formatted) on the Conditional article? If this will help in improving the article I will take the time to do so. Do you think these articles are ready to have a new evaluation since they have both been significantly updated? I would like to get them to at least an "A" article status.

I think Picirilli is one of the finest commentators I have ever read (I have all his commentaries). I like Forlines as well. Methodist Ben Witherington is solid, one of my favorites. B.J. Oropeza's dissertation on 1 Cor 10:1-12 (Paul and Apostasy) was outstanding. Like you, one of the reasons why I am not a Calvinist is because of how they handle the warning passages such as John 15; Romans 8, 11; 1 Cor 6, 9, 10; Hebrews 3, 6, 10; 2 Peter 2, 3, etc. That these warnings are "hypothetical" or describing those "who have never been saved" is not at all persuasive. Thomas Schreiner and Douglas Moo are two of my favorite authors to read in the Calvinist tradition.

It was nice talking with you. Finish that dissertation of yours.

Blessings,ClassArm (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Thanks for the help. I'll keep the Conditonal Preservation article as is. I have had the Cond. Article on the re-evaluation list for quite some time. I'll put the Apostasy Article on the list sometime in the future. I should correct myself and say that I would like to see both articles receive a GA status--the A Grade is probably hard to receive. Anyway, nice working with you. Take care,ClassArm (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on Apostasy Article
Hey Tuckerresearch,

Someone has added a few links in the Apostasy article in the main body. I don't think they are helpful additions. They disrupt the flow of the article, and they just seem as unnecessary additions to me. I think they should be deleted but what do you think? I appreciate your feedback. Thanks,ClassArm (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Budge.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Budge.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Let's discuss the problem you have with the etymology section of Cuba. Joel M.  Chat ✐  16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Christoffa Corombo
Hi! Columbus name was never written in any other language than latin. I think the first tuscan translation appeared a century later as Cristofano Colombo, not to mention the spanish Cristobal Colon we all know about ... Therefore if we assume that 1) he was Genoese 2) his mothertongue was Genoese 3) his original name was the genoese translation of Christopher Dove , we come up with Christoffa Corombo. How? Genoese language and spelling went through a very turbulent evolution, decline and today is facing certain extinction. The 1st great spelling reform took place at the end of XVI century by Paolo Foglietta (genoese Poro Foggetta), the second one at the beginning of the XIX century by Martino Piaggio (genoese Martin Ciazzo) . They took into account the phonetic evolution of the language itself, i.e. the change from L to R, and then the loss of the R, therefore Colombo --> Corombo --> Combo , which is the word for 'dove' in today's Genoese language.

As for written proof of what would have been the spelling of what we may assume was Columbus genoese name, we found in Genoa's library a 1595 edition of genoese rhymes compiled by father Christopher Zapata. That's for the first name. For the family name it is certain proof the epic poem translation "ra Gerusalemme deliverâ" (the delivered Jerusalem) which you can find on Google, here is the link http://books.google.it/books?id=re4OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=gerusalemme+delivera&hl=it&ei=W6CLTI_EG8PNswbP_bHSAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=gerusalemme%20delivera&f=falselookfor XV , 32 (page 203)

Unfortunately the regional languages of Italy are neglected and seen by a menace to the nation's unity by the central power, so it's quite difficult to find research and documentation on the matter. I am an amateur, so is the friend of mine, Conrad Montpetit, who carried out the research.

Cheers!

[Previous comment left by User:Gbparodi]

Borges
Hi Tuckerresearch, Thanks for your message - very helpful. Does that mean that some templates are only visible on certain browsers? I guess it does. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cigars
Hi there. I see you've fairly recently (in Wikipedia terms) made an entry on the Cigars talk page and was wondering if you'd have any interest in participating in a "Cigar Work Group" to try to improve the histories of the various cigar makers, write up pages for key cigar components like filler, binder, wrappers, etc., and to otherwise improve the coverage of cigarmaking on Wikipedia... Drop me a line if this is of any interest and I will see about setting up a formal work group. best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR Carrite (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

De Profundis - are you interested in working on Wildean subjects?
Hi Tucker,

Thanks for the clean-up on De Profundis - and you are not the first editor to point out my weakness at spelling! As you can see the article is very much in a way-ward stage, I recently brought it out of its stub state and will work on it more comprehensively soon. Would you be interested in working on it more? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
Just for information: Third opinion is for disputes between two editors. The John Calvin discussions, at least those I have seen on the talk page, are between more than two editors --Senra (Talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was told to go there at the Help Desk: Help_desk -Sorry.TuckerResearch (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John Calvin
Please leave the comments about other editors out of your talk page posts; discuss the content, not the personalities. Yworo (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. User:RelHistBuff has displayed bad etiquette and clear ownership behavior, he has run off several editors to "his" page, and nobody seems to care. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Attacking other editors is not the solution. Please follow standard dispute resolution processes. Engage moderation, open an RFC, but do not attack another editor again. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo, read No_personal_attacks. I have done none of these things.  As to "dispute resolution," read the Talk:John Calvin page and associated talk pages.  I have tried to reason with this user, I have offered compromises.  He has dashed every single one.  Look at what he edits: Special:Contributions/RelHistBuff.  All he really edits are articles related to CalvinismandReformed churches.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when he displays ownership behavior it is.  Look at who edits the John Calvin page: (edit statistics).  Most of his edits are to keep it his way.  Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but when he displays ownership behavior it is.TuckerResearch (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to move to the next level of dispute resolution and stop attacking other editors. Use the mediationorRfC process. If you think the user has a chronic behavior issue, open a user conduct RfC. I am not going to dispute with you what is and is not a personal attack. I am concerned that you are being uncivil instead of following standard dispute resolution process. Personal attacks will not resolve the issue, only pursuing higher levels of dispute resolution will. If you continue to spout off about another user's conduct without pursuing effective paths to resolution, I will issue standard escalating warnings. Yworo (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to you if you think I'm being rude, I don't mean to be. It's just the obvious WP:OWN behavior of this editor irks me. Also, again Yworo, read No_personal_attacks. I am not personally attacking RelHistBuff. People throw around WP:NPA without reading it. I have not personally attacked RelHistBuff. Have I been sarcastic and pointed out his faults? Yes. I asked the Help Desk what to do (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=386350326), they told me to go to Third Opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=386361282). I did that they told me that was wrong. They told me to go to Wikiquette alerts, I did that (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=386384574). It is still at Wikiquette_alerts/archive92 if you want to take a look or comment. It has been archived without a resolution. RelHistBuff got one of his allies to attack me. It was fruitless. So don't tell me I have not tried to come up with a solution using some dispute resolution process. He has run numerous editors away from this page (User:Carlaude and User:Jonathunder are two they've come to mind); he's making up guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Calvin&diff=prev&oldid=389264174) and telling people they can't edit the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Calvin&diff=prev&oldid=374098877)! This is a violation of the Wikipedia spirit. So, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit acting as if I'm the end of Wikipedia as we know it and look at RelHistBuff. I'm more than willing to bet, he'll wait a few days, move the Calvin infobox back down to where it was before you moved it up. I also am willing to bet he gets rid of the Philipp Melanchthon and Martin Bucer infoboxes I just put up. Watch. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been archived because it's the wrong venue. RelHistBuff isn't engaging in incivility. Third opinion isn't correct because there are already more than two editors involved. The essence of the NPA policy is not to comment on the editor, only discuss the content. Sarcasm doesn't helpand only weakens your position. When dealing with issues with another editor, uninvolved parties are likely to take you less seriously if you are engaging in being sarcastic and pointing out faults. RfC is probably your best bet, follow the instructions at WP:RFC. You create a talk page section with a brief statement of your issue with the content, not the editor and request outside opinions. If that doesn't work, then you can address behavior issues with a user conduct RfC. Meanwhile, I suggest you drop the sarcasm and fault finding because it is unnecessary and can only work against you. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Yworo, I told you. RelHistBuff removed the Martin Bucer infobox, see the diff. And the reason he gave for removing a perfectly acceptable infobox? "infobox is optional" This is because he thinks he owns that page too. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. The bold, revert, discuss cycle says next you open a discussion about it on the talk page. There are some articles where there is a consensus not to have an infobox. I know because I've gotten into discussions about it in the past and lost. However, this article may not be one of them. The way to find out is to open a discussion. Even if there was a consensus not to have one in the past, it may no longer be supportable. Certainly one editor can't support it without agreement from other regular editors. I for one support infoboxes and will join the discussion, but if there are two or more regular editors besides RHB who are against it, then we'll be outnumbered. It's no biggie, the regular editors of the article get to say... but not a single editor. Yworo (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Yworo, if you think the Martin Bucer article could use an infobox, go ahead and try. But take a peek at this old John Calvin talkpage:Talk:John_Calvin/Archive2009. These are the "arguments" RelHistBuff will give you. And even if a majority of editors want the infobox, he'll say "consensus does not equal a vote" and remove it, because his consensus means more than yours. I'm giving you fair warning. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've got no irons in this fire. If you don't think you can win, why fight the battle? If you think there's a problem, you need to pursuedispute resolution as I've suggested. Nobody is going to do it for you. Yworo (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"If you don't think you can win, why fight the battle?" Do you see? This is what RelHistBuff does. He runs editors away, and that is against the spirit of Wikipedia, but nobody seems to care. What really angers me is when he told people they couldn't change the John Calvin article because it was once a Featured Article (see diff; there are others). And nobody seems to care. I'd go to dispute resolution, but he'll message his allies and it'll be three or four against me, and nobody seems to care. His intransigence now has you telling me, and you're an experienced and seemingly well-liked editor, to just not edit or try to improve one of hispages because I can't win. "Why fight the battle?" Don't you see how sad and wrong that is? TuckerResearch (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, the only way to deal with that is to open an RfC, which brings in outside editors. But unless you are going to do it, it's not going to happen. It is actually common for featured articles not to have an infobox and for that to be used to support not having an infobox. Sometimes even an RfC won't gather enough support to override it. If you're not committed enough to open an RfC, maybe he is simply right about it.Yworo(talk) 14:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the copyright "red herring" that User:RelHistBuff (talk) tried to use (seediff) just to keep the page the way he wants it, regardless of what other editors would like. That is the type of behavior I am glad you've now witnessed firsthand. It would scare and run-off inexperienced editors, and it is typical of his ownership behavior. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll see what happens... Yworo (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And thus... His image is better and you don't know what you're talking about. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've opened an RfC to choose between the 17 available left-facing images. This is what you should do in this sort of situation. Yworo (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me a dreamer and idealist that I thought it should be handled on the John Calvin talk page. And I thank you for knowing the ins and outs of the RfC process - a process I've never cared to familiarize myself with because I never thought it necessary before. All Wiki conflicts I've ever been in have been handled on talk pages. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It all happens on the talk page. The "rfctag" simply invites other editors interested in the topic to participate. When things get deadlocked on the talk page, new blood helps (might not end up with the result you want, but will be a new consensus). Yworo (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant always solved with discussion on the talk page, I've always been able to reach compromise solutions before without bringing in outside editors or issuing RfCs. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, thanks for your calm determination to find a solution to the ongoing problem of editors moving the old right-facing image, etc. I think the compromise image does what I've always wanted, stop edit wars from happening every month on the Calvin page over the lead image. (Personally, I think the guideline that right-facing lead images be on the left is silly; I see no problem with putting the right-facing lead image in the infobox on the right, but...) To ward off any attempt that User:RelHistBuff will claim that this compromise image has copyright problems, I've found a source discussing its history and provenance, and added two footnotes to its description page. We'll see if he changes it. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's open to change as the RfC is still open, but so far we have 6 responses, with 3 first choices for this image and it's second choice for the other three, so I thought it was time to put it in place. The infobox may be another argument entirely, but hopefully RHB will see that he can't simply continue to revert people on it. Yworo (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary
A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussionTemplates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30. Jheald (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

New Corporate Election Article
Tuckerresearch,

I hope that you are doing well. I have just finished a complete revision of Corporate Election that I think you would be interested in. It still has more that could be added, but these other additions will take some more time. I have used the best scholarly sources and provided a lot of information for people to chew on. Let me know what you think. The Apostasy in Christianity and Conditional Preservation articles continue to receive over 1,500 hits a month. I will posting in the external links section a 45 page article titled "Early Christian Writers on Apostasy." I think you would be interested in it. Take care, ClassArm (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)
Please don't edit war.

Discussion on the talk page has clearly established there is no need for a hat-note. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me what to do; and two guys mentioning a rather obscure rule open to interpretation has not "clearly established" anything. TuckerResearch (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asking, not telling (the "Please" should have been the give-away). If you're not satisfied with the discussion, come discuss it.--Dweller (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)