User talk:Pmanderson/Archive 9

Mephistopheles

This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.

Yours,

Rich Dengrove User:RDengrove

)

Nansen

It's entertainingly embarrassing if I hit on something actually wrong. I sent Bish a message. Haukur (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1801 Presidential Election

I have removed the following material that you added to the Electoral College (United States) article:

In 1801, the House acted under the unamended Constitution, which permitted votes for the first five candidates in the Electoral College, but the only votes cast there were for Jefferson or Burr.

The pre-Twelfth Amendment Electoral College (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3) said that if two people received the vote of a majority of the electors (not a majority of the electoral votes), then the House selected one of those two people to be the President (with the other becoming Vice President). The "five highest" provision referred to an election in which nobody received a vote from a majority of the electors. SMP0328. (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost a pleasure

A rare (in my experience) case: a peaceful and friendly debate about a naming of a unique Polish-German historical entity: at the bottom of Talk:Episcopal Duchy of Warmia. Friendly input appreciated, stress level low :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arms and legs

Spotted Sleipnir in your edit summary. That was an interesting article, thanks for that! Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College (United States) and the VP's tiebreaking vote

I finally found a reliable source (USA Today from 2000) that states that there is legal controversy on this issue, after much discussion.Robert A.West (Talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style (Macedonia)

I asked what I thought was a fair question, but it seems to have been universally ignored. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles)#Why not just disambiguate as necessary? You asked: "And is anybody going to answer JD2718's question, or shall I?" I think we have the answer. Could you reply? Jd2718 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian diaspora

So, I'm a Macedonian living in the UK. Can you please tell me what this article has to do with me?--   Avg    00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

glossary

Elaborate rules? You should see WP:LAYOUT. It's always going to be a compromise between the need for standardisation and the need to give lattitude to individuals. You and I just aim for different points on that continuum (most, not all of the time).

I'm afraid my brain turns to jelly when faced with the text in Stanton's proposal, so I've reached the limit of my ability to comment, at least until it's explained better.

The other matter: Skyring's driving us crazy in his barely concealed campaign against US date formatting; while my personal preference would be for international (and metrics, indeed) throughout, that's quite different from my political/administrative stance, which accounts for more than my inner prefs. The distinction exists in all of us, I suppose. And while removing DA causes ructions only among a tiny minority, mass conversions of US to international data formatting per Skyring's empirical designs would cause major disruption. In any case, the utter triviality of the difference between the two formats persuades me that, like the trivial transatlantic spelling differences, both are just fine on WP. You have my full support in resisting his push, as I've already made apparent on the talk pages. Tony (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So you think Stanton's page worth something, if you've copy-edited it? Should I do the same? Tony (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PS and are you going to remove "present-day" from your recent edit of MOSNUM? I foresee trouble with US military writers otherwise. Tony (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Modern" would be less restrictive, don't you think? "Present-day" seems to imply right now; WWI battleships aren't present-day, but the editors seemed to want international for them. And it does say "in accordance with usage", which covers your militant international datist who wants to convert an article on the Civil War (although hard to imagine it would happen). Tony (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling change

I know that some spelling changes can be WP:LAME, but in some circumstances it is worthwhile evaluating a proposal on its specific merits. No-one is trying to say that one version of English is inferior to another version in general, the name change isn't being done out of nationalistic pride (with honor/honour killing who'd want to do that?), and the discussion has been surprisingly civil for such an emotive subject. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hard and geeky and most editors don't do it"

We should indeed be grateful for this pithy quote. It expresses well something I've been trying to get at for a long time with much more verbiage and much less eloquence.[1] Haukur (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Date Links

Is it worth proposing a poll on date links? How does one go about organizing one?Dejvid (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1800s

Sept, do you still have an objection to changing the 1800s, 1700s etc pages to disambig pages per my suggestion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)? I believe the two policy pages I mentioned support my position. If you're on board, I think the next step is to outline the debate at WP:VPP to see if there's anything more to add, before changing the pages. (Feel free to reply here. Or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The never-ending Kiev issue

Hi PMAnderson, hope you're doing well. Thank you for attempting to respond to Vvolodymyr. Earlier today I have twice tried to do it myself, but ended up getting away from the computer slightly depressed and somewhat infuriated... for I also find those ideas "immoral and offensive". *sigh* Humanity seems to be so far away from even understanding what freedom is... (the situation in my dear Argentina is equally depressing, as we seem to be moving backwards towards worshipping the authorities).

Later today, after having a few drinks, I'll try to complement your comments with some boring policy descriptions, just in case. There's still some faint hope. — Dear God, what a constant waste of time. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it immoral and offensive to tell you what my name is? Guess what my name in English is Volodymyr - because I decided so - and nobody has a right to deny me that right. And a million people online can refer to me as "the repulsive idiot" but I will have an upper hand - because it's MY name, MY freedom.

I feel that heavy shackles are being put on Ukrainian government when someone so blatantly disallows it to tell the world on what it's capital should be called.

This is very very very sad. Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Philitas of Cos

Thanks for your comments about Philitas of Cos. I fixed some of the problems and have questions about the rest; please see the reply at the end of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments; I followed up there again. Eubulides (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments, in particular the mention of Pauly-Wissowa; I followed up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos again. Eubulides (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I read Pauly some more, read your and other editors' comments, updated Philitas of Cos accordingly, and responded to everybody's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Thanks again. Further comments welcome. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Don't remove {{Fact}} tags without citing the reference. I'm putting the tag for it saying "most hisotrians" that is also weasel wording Ctjf83Talk 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

STOP removing the fact tag, till you put a reference, as stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability Ctjf83Talk 20:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"the only recent historian whom I know of to support 1757", unless you are some Hamilton historian, you not knowing of other historians isn't good enough. The weasel words need to be fixed too. Ctjf83Talk 20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't good enough for me, just remove that part of the sentence that says most historians agree. have you not looked at the Weasel words page??? Ctjf83Talk 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing sourced content and replacing it with your personal view. That source I have inserted is the best of current research, and is not controversial. It is likely not in your sources because the works you favor are so old and out-of-date. I just want this article to be better, but every time I make a few plain, vanilla, well-sourced edits, you vandalize or destroy them. I realize you viscerally hate anything remotely resembling a reasonable, balanced article on the subject of Alexander Hamilton, and always replace that sort of content with whatever your personal opinion is, regardless of the available facts, or with the most selective and esoteric reading of them, but please don't delete my valid, accurate, sourced content. I realize you care nothing for destroying other peoples good, accurate, sourced work because you personally don't like it.

I'm guessing there are many, many other editors who have left in disgust after their hard work is vandalized by someone like yourself who feels they have the absolute right to dictate whose content is valid and whose is not based on a selective and stubborn interpretation of available knowledge rather than a consensus of reliable sources. I always provide reliable sources for my content; I try very hard to provide multiple sources if I think a point is particularly controversial, because the broadest consensus is the strongest. I don't have the endless time you seem to have, so if you want to go on deleting all of my mainstream, sourced edits, you'll almost certainly win out in the end, but please know you're doing a horrible disservice to Wikipedia by constantly deleting well-sourced and mainstream edits in favor of your personal worldview. At least try to see open your mind up every now and then to the ideas of others with whom you might instinctively disagree. However, if you insist on continuing to overwrite peoples' hard work and well-sourced edits like this, then I sincerely hope some admin comes to their senses and tosses you off Wikipedia for a while, or for good. You are acting like a troll, and trolls are poison to Wikipedia and to human knowledge and decency. You are making wikipedia weaker by doing this, and you have personally offended me over and over by doing this again and again. Please, please stop it. AdRem (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PMA, Perhaps you can explain what specifically your objection is to the fact that Hamilton sought an accelerated course at Princeton and was rejected? As I understand your POV, you believe that Hamilton may never have sought enrollment at the College of New Jersey, may never have interviewed with Dr. Witherspoon, etc.? Are you able to provide multiple reliable sources to support this claim? In addition to the source from Chernow (which you deleted again), many other sources list this same bit of information, of which I here provide 3 of the more mainstream and relatively recent Hamilton biographies as an attempt at providing a representative sample of the current historical consensus: This same information is detailed in Alexander Hamilton: A Life by Willard Sterne Randall on pages 61-62, in Alexander Hamilton: a Biography by Forrest McDonald on page 12, and in Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser on pages 20-21.

None of these sources claim their retelling of the history may never have happened like that, nor do they otherwise qualify their versions of this part of Hamilton's life. However, if there is a Hamilton bio or other reliable source that you know of which suggests that Hamilton may never applied to the College of New Jersey, could you please provide those sources? Otherwise, I would ask that please you undo your removal of my well-sourced edit. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A note

Per this, I wanted to note this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"...Sad; almost as sad as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs."

• What was sad about [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs]?Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

replied on my talk. thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

I have a problem with your recent change because it uses Bate when not giving a straight out quote. Also, it gives a large swathe of page numbers that are already covered by later footnotes, which makes it inaccurate. I tried to direct you to Samuel Johnson's early life for putting in a longer version of the story if needed. The comma was once an and, but got changed sometime in the over 2,000 edits since this was all put together. This section was cut by Awadewit's request for more information that wasn't biographical, so I hope you respect that. We are at the word limit for pages, and this has to be condescend. If you want to work on the other page, feel free. However, please respect the fact that there were over a dozen people working with the sources and contacting me about individual points, many who studied Johnson during their professional lives. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that your primary concern? My concern was that you moved it into the health section. Why not keep it in the biography? It could go right after a sentence in which he was fired from a school. I put in a sample here. Can we agree upon this? I strongly feel that this point is a biographical point and essential to the biography section. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a bit confused about the health section. It just deals with posthumous diagnosis of his health, the stuff about it affecting his life are integrated into the body of the biography. His scrofula, gout, seizures, etc, are all integrated into the biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread the talk page and FAC. This was already discussed by a large group of editors, and the section was significantly rewritten to the agreement. The consensus will probably not change, as there were many people involved in it and came to a mutual agreement. The term "health" was the easiest way to title the section and was agreed upon by all present. Now, do you have any actionable concerns according to FAC guidelines that weren't already agreed by the large consensus to be in the state that they are now? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only other opposes have changed to support the article. Is there anything left to your oppose that needs to be an oppose, or can the rest be covered quickly or brought to the talk page to determine the consensus view over it? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Davemon and Shoemaker's Holiday. Also, I scanned copies of those pages, and others disagree with your interpretation of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read, you would see that both of their comments have been dealt with, and neither felt like their comments were worth opposing, so you cannot use them to justify your own oppose. This is the Summary of the FAC. Please don't misrepresent their language, especially when they make it explicit that they are not opposing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pmanderson, if you are going to disrespect me on my talk page, just know that there are many admin who watch my talk page, and such language is completely inappropriate. Furthermore, if they did not feel that their comments were worth an oppose, you have no right to second guess them. Your claims about plagarism before and other citation problems have been put to review by many admin and copies of the works have been provided and everyone I have talked to agrees that what you saw is not the actual case. Since such things are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, I severely recommend you stop trying to insinuate such a thing again. Not only does it violate things like Assume Good Faith, it also is a breach of Civility and lacks any kind of Verifiability, and these can easily result in a block. So, if you have no merit on your on or strong evidence, please make it clear, or provide evidence. There are only two options for you right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw you mentioned me. I don't think "endemic bad writing" is a far point. I had a bad cold, and didn't feel up to doing a proper copyedit, but, after all the changes that happened during the reworking, there were a few points that could use a final polish before it hit FA. Applying that final polish was my sole intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop edit warring, such as at Francis, Dauphin of France. You have avoided violating the letter of 3RR, but there is also a prohibition against the slow edit war you are currently engaged. Consensus is against you. You can continue to seek new consensus on the Talk page only; stop editing the mainspace page against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RM Thomas Arundel

Hallo, I'm considering making the move discussed at Talk:Thomas_Arundel_(archbishop)#Requested_move - would you agree that the proposal plus three "supports" gives a consensus in favour of the move despite your "weak oppose"? PamD (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Pmanderson/Archive 9, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sicilian Carretto

I thought you may be interested in a cart imported to the US in 1948 by my grandfather with the story of Orlando furioso handcarved in Sicily. It is very large and had been used in the parades in the North End of Boston in the 1950s. If you are interested in seeing it, gail.schlicke@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.62.113 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks

This is a formal request on your talk page asking you to stop attacking me personally, and to please address the content of my posts. Comments such as "No one except Serge, in his various incarnations, supports ..." 1 are personal attacks (not to mention false). You've made numerous similar comments today, thus constituting recurring attacks. I hope we can resolve this without bringing in administrators. Please address only the content of my posts from now on. By the way, I'm far from the only one who supports moving all American cities for which [[Cityname]] already redirects to the article about the city at [[Cityname, Statename]]. And please do no conflate a legitimate user name change with inappropriate behavior. Remember, WP:AGF. Thanks. --Serge (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Earls of Devon

Hi, would you like to join a discussion at User talk:WereSpielChequers#Falkes de Breauté about an anomaly between William de Redvers, 5th Earl of Devon, an article you edit a couple of years ago and Falkes de Breauté? We'd like to pick your brains on this. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette POV tags

Hi, why did you tag the Lafayette article as POV? You didn't leave a note on the talk page, that I could tell. What are your issues with the article? I'd like to discuss. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You know, I am a hobbyist; not an expert (I work in marketing, by trade). I came to the article as part of a collaborative effort. I got some books, read, etc. It is true that everything I know about Lafayette, I learned while writing the article. As there didn't seem to be a resident expert on the subject, I decided to learn what I could and write the article.

My question: why did you leave a note on my talk page about dates/spelling a few months back? I mean, there was a group of editors actively improving the article, adding sources, doing research, etc. Why didn't you advise my sources were lacking? Since WP lacks experts in these subjects, why did you not lend a hand; instead of adding some largely irrelevant comment about the dates/spelling? I wrote the article in good faith, not knowing my sources were poor. Again, I am not a scholar; just an enthusiasist. Now it is tagged POV, and has a large oppose at FAC.

I must say, I am demoralised that you decided to continue your work on a largely irrelevant area (date formats/spelling), while ignoring a place where you could contribute your talents. I am not an expert, but I did learn a lot with this article. And, I think it much improved from when I found it in early August. So, whatever...withdraw the article, I don't care. Just, next time: please help guide the improvement drive, or at least comment during the GA review, Peer review or A-class review. And, please, let the damn MOS go...you could do much better work elsewhere (for instance: working with me while I wrote this article for 2 months). Kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And apologies if the above was rude. I was disappointed; I'd thought the article in better shape than, I guess, it is. I do wish there was a way in which you could have contributed to the article before FAC -- or a way for you to be more involved in these articles, in the first place. It's frustrating. Your editor summary to my talk said "pan", which implied a certain satisfaction. Yes, you have "panned" my work--good job. But really: why did you not contribute when you noticed work was taking place? It's annoying that one searches Wikipedia to find someone with whom to work on an article of importance; and, finds nothing until FAC when the experts appear out of nowhere to blast the whole thing. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I got a little bent out of shape. My goal, really, is to improve coverage of certain areas. And, the French Revolution is one of these areas. This is not because I am an expert on the French Revolution, but because I have an interest and the articles really should be as good as the possibly can be. Regarding your comments, well, the article is based on all of the biographies I was able to find on Lafayette. Biased? I think someone once said that it's hard to write a biography and not be biased. Anyway, I'll work more ont it; sorry for the lash out. As far as obvious and "embarassing errors"--why don't you just correct those?

Spelling/dates: I don't have any opinion. I think we should start worrying about date formatting after we get the content right. Otherwise, IMO, it's a waste of time. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Eugepae

Done. See User:Pmanderson/Eugepae - can put a U1 on it when you're finished with it. Orderinchaos 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dog

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) policy, before taking part in move request disscussions. Thanks in advance. Mieciu K (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And according to my humble opinion the move is necessary. I find your "Please, stop" comment rude. Since when can't I start discussions on page moves? Should I first start a discussion about starting a discussion about moving a page? Mieciu K (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was planning one, and than I started the other. In both cases I have contacted the appropriete Wikiprojects , I think 159,380 active Wikipedians can handle my 2 request move debates at the same time. Mieciu K (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

your edit at MOSNUM

Removing the D-word might be contentious. What do you see as the change in emphasis/meaning in your edit? Tony (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ladder of Jacob

Thank you for your copyedit of Ladder of Jacob. I appreciate it: it was needed. You added a 'clean-up' tag. Where I can improve the Article (References, Article titles and sections, Capital letters, Italics, Quotations, Punctuation, Chronological items, etc )? A ntv (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No-One likes a know-it-all

["People who proclaim that "no-one could possibly misunderstand what I meant" should at least learn how to spell first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"] That distracts people from the issue and is insulting. There was nothing ambiguous in what I said. I think that kind of comment is what kills the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I challenge you to work harder at making people feel welcome here.--Zaurus (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FSC

Dear PMA, to me, there are two issues: one is straight wording, the other is the number of support declarations that are required in addition to overall consensus. The straight wording option doesn't fuzz up the distinction betwee a nominator as a reviewer, and the occasional withdrawal by a nominator doesn't equate with a reviewer's "oppose", IMO. Tony (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Pass edit

Thank you for undoing the edit on the Joe Pass Article. I am trying to encourage editors to at least link the years of Birth & Death for a person so the reader can get some additional context on that person's life. I was going to go back and undo it myself, but I wasn't sure what an edit war with a bot would be like :-). Also, you have an very well thought-out and attractive User Page.

Be healthy,

Michael David (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stopping the bot

If you have a reason for stopping the bot, please say so on my talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention for mills

I'm not sure I understand your question. I need to fully understand what you mean before I can answer. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ortisei

Hey, can you give some suggestions for a name search that would satisfy you. I am really quite sure this town is referred to as Ortisei in English. For all intents and purposes Ortisei and Urtijëi are obviously the same word; and are the way the local population call the city. It makes sense that Urtijëi is rarely used commercially, because look how in English it is difficult to even figure out what the sound is. :-) St. Ulrich is not used, even by most of the local Ladin-speaking people. Anyway... Icsunonove (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you can be a pain in the arse, but I know you are impartial. :-) I'm pretty convinced myself what is proper English usage with regard to this town, but I agree I should prove my point. Anyway, I'll look into your 'methods'. Anyway, on the other hand, I see no proof that Urtijëi is really used commonly in the English language. That said, I don't know why every topic brought up on BZ has to bring up terms like English Imperialism, fascism, etc., etc. ad naseum. :-) I think the BZ and TN pages on Wikipedia have some of the most benefit in capturing all the various histories and namings for these places. Icsunonove (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it doesn't matter to me really which name is used, just that it is correct English usage. Note also that the core language of my ancestors is Ladin (Rheatian-Romance), so I certainly have no problem with Urtijëi. Ladin languages are my favourite in the end; but I see no reason to be ridiculous about demanding they be used in English. I disagree that I caused trouble though, and do take issue of being lumped into the same boat as Gryffindor. People like him actually caused this trouble by being completely radicalized, and naming pages and defending their locations without any basic discussion. It seemed he really had a goal to wipe out "Romantic" language usage in this province. On the other hand, I'm very proud for multi-lingual solutions I pushed for with Trentino-Alto Adige/Seudtirol and Bolzano-Bozen, etc. The utter lack of fighting on many of those pages is proof in the pudding. :) Icsunonove (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker from America, if you can call us English speakers. :-) My roots are from T-AA/BZ, and they are fundamentally "Ladin", but obviously also Italic cand Germanic. Anyway, I added more searches, see if they are improved. Icsunonove (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you're responsible...

for getting me to look at article Type I and type II errors, can you help the fourth paragraph in that lede? While reducing it to simple English would be too much to ask of you (but would help me), could you tell me if you agree that

... perhaps because the information is incorrect, appears more compelling that it really is, whereas a type two error is to that evidence that should substantially change ones prior estimate does not, ...

is wrong twice-over? I'm'a thinking it should be "appearing more compelling" and "type two error is that". Read the entire sentence through first, because I'm only showing the problem section, then recheck? I'd change it, but after witnessing the discussions at the WP:MOSPOOL, I know I'd get it wrong(er).   :-) Shenme (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

your stab in the back

I've just read your little offering at the recent ANI. I don't think I could bring myself to stab you in the back like that. Tony (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I used your name in vain

Hope you do not mind, but I quoted one of your comments and used your name in vain at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships guidelines is inconsistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Please let me know if you have an issue with this. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Acted without discussion

If you had an objection to the content of the Bible citation‎ page, why didn't you mention it _before_ moving it to a different namespace? If the issue is important to you, fixing it was another possible route.

What was your objective in moving the content to a different namespace? -Ac44ck (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merging_articles#Cross-namespace_moves

Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the proper place for this. However, when proposing to move what appears to be an article out of the main namespace, it is strongly recommended that some form of Wikipedia:Deletion process should be used, preferably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion do not build consensus. This is because the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia.

Sigh.

Please move the content back to article space. -Ac44ck (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do you believe that the recent changes made by Ac44ck to the article have created "a non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive, but descriptive article on the various ways in which the Bible has been, and is cited"? If not, what needs changing? Reply on the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• There were many ways to handle the problems you perceived in the Bible citation article. Your solutions were uninspired. The first paragraph in the reply here may be of help:

Talk:Darcy–Weisbach_equation#Confusion_with_the_Fanning_friction_factor

- Ac44ck (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello, Pmanderson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Ac44ck (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A reply to you at my talkpage

Yes, there is one now.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM

While I object to being referred to as a "single-purpose irritant" I appreciate your support for my right to put the question. It looks like I am not going to get an answer though because the question has now been buried amongst all the IEC garbage. My objective is to assess whether there is indeed a point of principle here that does indeed have consensus. Is that too much to ask? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

the {{tfd}} template

I noticed you'd applied this to {{intro-tobe}} after it had caused me some confusion. Unfortunately it has rather specific syntax, needing the full {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} syntax to work correctly when the template it is applied to is transcluded onto other pages. I edited it, and thought you'd like to know. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Occurrence-in-subtuple problem

Is the formula at the end a trivial formula/solution? Have you more information on this topic?
I would be interested in further information for this, if you have... in my institute my colleagues said no, there is no trivial solution for this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biolex2 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply on Frederick III, German Emperor

Hey, I hope you didn't miss the undented reply under your latest one. I tried to undent the replies so it wouldn't get too scrunched to the side. Just so you don't get lost, haha. --Banime (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Root of all evil?

I notice this line from WP:COMMONNAME is being cited in the flora discussion:

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name ...

It appears this line was snuck in there without much consideration or discussion a couple of years ago, and is being used more and more as basis to ignore the common name convention. It also happens to be the basis for defending the practice of predisambiguating in many specific conventions, including adding the state as a disambiguator for all articles about U.S. cities that are not on the AP list, whether disambiguation is called for in the individual case or not. And so the efficacy of the general conventions erode... --Born2cycle (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there always need to be room for exceptions on an individual article basis Fixed-winged aircraft comes to mind). My objection is when a convention or guideline for an entire class of articles blatantly contradicts the general guidelines. That's what leads to the erosion of the efficacy of the general guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)

this more recent version is better I still have some issues with the page (for example "Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships."), but they are minor in comparison with the change you have initiated. Let's see if it sticks. --PBS (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the dual-article-per-topic problem is minor. There should be one article titled per the common name of the topic (if there is one - by scientific name if not), and dabbed as needed per WP:D just like any other WP article. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please move your Very Strong Oppose from the straw poll. Your proposal and endorsement are included in that section, your opposition should be obvious to other participants. The discussion is the 15 000+ words above the poll, if it is not already included then reinsert your comment in those sections. Reaching a solution requires a KISS approach, please help to bring about a resolution to this discussion by keeping the poll section short and simple. If you think your preference overrides a 250 year old convention that revolutionised our understanding of the natural world (the unambiguous, unique, and universally accepted nomenclatural system), your cause would be better served by clarifying your own proposal (and 'rationale') and expanding on that in the discussion sections. Your attempt to contradict every RS of any field with your interpretation of wikipolicy is, to say the least, ambitious. cygnis insignis 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! Your reference to the Dark Ages brightened my morning. I was not countering your personal preference with one of my own, the system of nomenclature has been adopted by everyone. By your reckoning I can publish an 'english' name, then move articles to that new name - cool! I wonder what I should call this organism, Pmanderson's mushroom-type thing would effectively skirt the problem you have identified. cygnis insignis 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Coffee

I agree that Coffee the beverage and the plant could and arguably should be two distinct articles, I just think the names of each should both be Coffee, disambiguated as appropriate. Coffee (plant), for example, is far more in line with naming conventions, guidelines and policy than is Coffea. That is, in English, the plant is much more often referred to as Coffee than as Coffea. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster

I note that you have reverted my previous revertion of Phillip Baird Shearer's page move of Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster to Big Ben. In the comments you state that another WP:RM is required to achieve revertion.

However, PBS originally moved the page after unilaterally ignoring the results of the previous RM, which was no clear consensus to move. He went ahead anyway, employing spurious reasoning, against established policy concerning consensus. So what would be the point of having another RM? The results of that could just be ignored too, making the whole thing a double waste of everyone's time. What is the point of having an RM in the first place, let alone a second, if the admin just goes ahead and makes their own biased decision anyway? Chillysnow (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Frederick III, German Emperor FAC

Hey, thanks for your comments on Frederick III, German Emperor's FAC. I have gone through your oppose and addressed all of your concerns, with the exception of the concern about the legacy section. I stated my opinion on the page that the secondary sources did give those opinions, not the wikipedia editors, and the net result of the legacy section is "neutral" in that it shows both sides and doesn't come to a hard conclusion so it is not pushing any sort of POV. I have replied with more specifics on the FAC page as well if you'd like to take a look. I'd really appreciate it if you could relook your stand on this issue, as I feel because it is in all of the secondary sources it should go into the article in a NPOV manner, which I believe is already done. Thanks, and if you'd like to discuss more please let me know. --Banime (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, have you read my responses and arguments at the FAC and talk page? Is there anyway I can clarify them more for you? I want to make sure you understand them fully and I definitely don't want this to become an edit war. --Banime (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, I want to make sure theres no hint of a conflict between us. Arguments are fine, since we're working together they inevitably happen. I do thank you for your contributions and review to the article, however. I just disagree with you very much on that one point, and I feel no action can be taken on it by anyone due to the nature of the concern which I feel is a bit mistaken. Thanks again and if you have more questions you can ask. --Banime (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I really want to make this work. I understand all of your concerns, you really don't want to put undue weight to any side of an argument. While I disagree that the date of the source matters, do you have anything you can suggest that I try to improve the article? Thanks --Banime (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR Request

Hi PM, I saw you're listed at Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR; does this mean you can provide me with a full article from JSTOR, or just with information taken from an article in JSTOR? I'm working on expanding the National Agricultural Library article, and the only information on the history of the library that I can find is in an article on JSTOR, but unfortunately I don't have access to it, and the nearest library that has it is about 2.5 hours away. Thanks! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Language cranks

You said, "Like much of the Manual of Style, WP:DASH is the product of language cranks, who see WP as a means to reform the English language to their liking." Heve you discussed this elsewhere? — AjaxSmack 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anderson, I strongly object to the comment you made at that talk page, to which AjaxSmack draws attention here. As I have pointed out at that page, your gratuitously offensive remark was occasioned by an apparent elementary misunderstanding of WP:DASH. I took the trouble to correct that for the editor who misunderstood; you merely took the opportunity to continue your smear campaign against MOS editors. I, as you well know, am prominent among them. See my further remarks at WT:MOS.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cygnis

"Cygnis insignis", the unofficial coat of arms motto of Western Australia, being a Latin pun meaning "distinguished by its swans". Note the spelling difference between the Latin word for swan ("Cygnis") and the neo-Latin scientific name for the swan genus ("Cygnus"). Hesperian 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Hesperian 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Monmouthshire

Not a joking matter for some, as I know to my cost... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Australians in Britain

Hi. I don't understand your comment here. I wasn't point scoring - the proper name of the country is the United Kingdom, not Britain. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause and effect

As I said earlier, I had intended to stay out of that “date” biz on WT:MOSNUM until I saw you jump all the hell over a newcomer and slap him down as you did. If you had treated him with civility and toned down the arrogance, I think you wouldn’t have seen me hop in the saddle on this one. This is all just a suggestion; you can have it your way too. Cause and effect. Greg L (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just like to say. Thank you for your support at the MOSNUM talk page. I'm beginning to feel like the whole of wikipedia has gone stark raving mad over this issue over the last couple of months. So it is refreshing to hear a voice of reason. Hopefully, sanity can be restored at some point in the future. I hope we can work together. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you think I can help you with anything. Just out of interest, what do you think of my proposals for the MOSNUM policy? G-Man ^? 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing

Please stop vandalizing the IDF RfC by putting comments up in the hat statement. Those comments are already located in the section where they belong: the Comments section. Moreover, those comments have already been responded to. We certainly don’t you salting duplicates wherever you please. Unless you can present your *I am really, REALLY special* license for inspection, you can conform to the code of conduct on RfCs that other editors abide by. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Frederick III, German Emperor

No need for an edit war, just start up a new conversation on the talk page and if you're right a new consensus will develop. I know you're disappointed but don't be, if you really think its wrong then the facts will be on your side and it'll come towards your view. I've explored your view a number of times though and frankly I think you are a bit misled in this instance. Good luck though on future edits, but please discuss on talk pages before trying to overturn consensus and tag FAs. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Which size for xt?

PMA: Please see Template:Xt/Sandbox and leave a note here on Template_talk:Xt (a quick link to this talk page is also provided at the top of the sandbox) as to what range of sizes you find acceptable. Greg L (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Richard Hawes

I respectfully disagree with your recent edits to Richard Hawes. First, the historical marker "notes" that an inauguration took place. "Asserts" seems to me to cast doubt upon the fact that the event happened. The fact is, there was an event and Hawes was inaugurated governor of a group known as the Confederate government of Kentucky. The fact that the marker "notes" the event does not lend legitimacy to the government itself; it simply recognizes the fact that an event took place whereby Hawes assumed executive power in the group. The caption does not say Hawes was inaugurated governor of Kentucky; that would be grossly inaccurate. It does say Hawes was inaugurated Confederate governor of Kentucky; that is a fact.

Second, the Russellville Convention did enact a new constitution – one that dictated rules of operation for the Confederate government of Kentucky. The fact that it had no discernible effect on most Kentuckians is really irrelevant. If I declare my house and yard to be Acdixonland and draft a constitution to govern the inhabitants of Acdixonland, the fact that said constitution is totally ineffective does not change the fact that the document was created. As above, the article does not assert that the Confederate constitution supplanted the actual constitution of Kentucky; it merely states that the convention drafted a constitution, that this constitution prescribed a method of electing a new governor, and that this procedure was followed by adherents of the Confederate government. In fact, your edit is the less accurate of the two. The Russellville Convention did not affirm the Kentucky Constitution; it adopted all measures of that constitution that were not inconsistent with the document drafted at Russellville. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The oath of office need not be a part of an inauguration. Wikipedia's article on the subject defines "inauguration" as "a formal ceremony to mark the beginning of something such as a president term of office." Whether Hawes took the oath of office or not is immaterial given this definition; it marked the start of his term as Confederate governor. A celebration of such a ceremony is documented; if there was no such ceremony, what did Buell interrupt? Besides, all of the government's records subsequent to the event acknowledge Hawes as governor. I highly doubt they would have recognized him as such without his having taken the oath of office. The only cause for doubt is a denial Hawes made in the aftermath of the war, when admission of disloyalty may well have been punished with death, or at least ostracism. This seems a pretty flimsy basis for doubt to me.

It also seems that your most recent edit goes to great lengths to stress the irregularity of the Russellville Convention. It seems to me that the fact that the government was in exile and traveling with an army says pretty much everything that needs to be said about the legitimacy they possessed and the efficacy with which they operated. Regarding their "affirmation" of the Kentucky Constitution, they definitely saw themselves as a provisional government, but the permanent government they hoped would eventually replace them would likely have looked much different to the one previously constituted. I'll leave your edit as-is until we hash this out a little further. I've copied this discussion to the article's talk page; let's continue it there. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette

PMAnderson: Would you be willing to remove the large tags across of the top of the article? I saw the other day that the clean-up category had over 100,000 articles in it; I would imagine the tag is not going to draw a skilled copy-editor. I just now started re-editing the article; and, I find it quite abrasive that you immediately tagged the article after I've been active on it for less than 24 hours.

I assure you that I will try and copyedit the article to the best of my ability; and, later, approach others with more copyediting skill to do the same. It is quite disheartening; I'd rather that we worked together to improve the article than it be tagged. Also: no one is in dispute currently about anything, that I am aware.

Why is it tagged that we are disputing the article? You made your opinions quite apparent during the FAC--I am working to address those--how do you feel that the blatant tagging and calling it "utter trash" is helpful? I haven't even touched the sections you mentioned since the previous FAC. I feel you are being provocative; I am clearly trying to edit the article with your suggestions in the forefront of my mind. I would much rather work with you than against you. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Yesterday, I began editing the article in light of your suggestions. This was after nearly 7 weeks away from it. I approach this as an incremental affair. Do you honestly think it necessary to, immediately after I start editing it again, call it "trash" and begin placing tags all over the place? Is it something about me? I mean, why do you do this right after I begin trying to improve it again? I'm just completely confused. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Of course I will approach you. I'd intended to always; but, did not feel the need to waste your time until I was finished. And, I hope that you are willing to help fix the idiomatic language. I assure you that I have no bias; and, welcome all help you offer to assure a NPOV. But, please, your actions indicate that your problem is with me, not the article. From my point of view, I just began to start work when you slam it as "trash". Can't this not be more of a collegial affair? Otherwise: why should I even bother? No one else works on the article. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad it is not about me. I sincerely just want to make the article better. Anyway, the best indicator of progress, if you are interested, is the copy of the FAC in the article talk-space. I am replying and addressing all of the concerns one-by-one and commenting on the actions I've performed. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I do make lots of minor edits. I know that can be annoying, but it is easier on my browser. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you're on vacation; but, do you think I can remove the little tidbit about Lafayette holding up his son to save the priest? Lazulilasher (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Writing you

I have. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hi, you mentioned that you would be returning from a break on the 26th. I wanted to advise that I vastly underestimated how much work I'd be able to accomplish on the article in that time. I was able to add bits to the French Rev section; but, not as much as I would like. One area I did try to augment specifically was the background surrounding Lafayette's impeachment and decision to cross enemy lines; previously, the article left the impression that he played a reactive rather than proactive role. Regardless, I wanted to advise you that I was able to achieve much less than I had envisioned; further, much of what I added was "pegged" on without much thought to narrative flow. I'd intended to work back into that today and tomorrow; but, perhaps I had been a little overzealous. I likely won't get many improvements completed over the two-three days.

Lastly: I agree 100% about Lafayette's lovers. I do not immediately recall her name, but I remember reading of one young belle with whom he was quite involved during the 20s. Again, I will be working back into it; but, wanted to alert that I had been overreaching with my initial estimate of work "to-do". Kindly Lazulilasher (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Sharp FAC

Just wanted to touch base with you on your comments regarding my featured article nomination of Solomon P. Sharp. Were my edits there sufficient to address your concerns? If so, would you mind striking them through so the featured article director can see that they have been addressed? Do you feel you can now support the article's promotion to FA? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wimsey family

Hi PM :) I have gone to bat for the Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver article, which someone was proposing for deletion. While I am obviously not a fan of the increasingly disheartening tendency of some contributors to bureaucruftily destroy useful information just because they have never heard of it, I can see that some people might fail to see a need for a separate dedicated article for this single minor member of the Wimsey family (however notable its better known scions). Accordingly, I suggest it may be a good idea to merge this and other lesser known members of the Wimsey family (such as Thomas George Churchill Wimsey, 10th Duke of Denver) into a dedicated "list of" article (which would also be easier to protect from deletion addicts). What do you think?

You may also find it of interest that I have created a starter stub for Gerald Christian Wimsey, 16th Duke of Denver, arguably the most notable of the Dukes of Denver, which oddly enough did not seem to exist yet. I hope you will be able to fill in more details, as I currently have no access to source materials other than my memory :) Nude Amazon (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeks

Hello! It was suggested to me by 3dAlcove that you might possibly be interested in critically reviewing the Greeks article for any signs of bias and non-npov. I would appreciate that as a third party can spot issues not immediately apparent to those involved. Thank you and I am always at your disposal for any clarificaitons or suggestions you have.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

reply--Xenovatis (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You know better

Come on, you're no newbie, you know how things work around here. Stop being disruptive to make a point. This is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been here a long time, I seem to remember seeing you involved in debates around guidelines and policies. Established policies and guidelines are not overthrown simply because two or three editors come along and proclaim their unhappiness with the policy or guideline. If that were the case just about every policy would be long gone. Are you really unaware of the way things work around here? Is that really what you are saying? I find that assertion mind-boggling.

I am willing to assume that you are acting in good faith, and that you really don't know these things. If that is the case, I would strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the basic rules and policies of Wikipedia before you choose to edit policy and guideline pages again.

It would never have occurred to me that you didn't know this. Honestly, I am shocked. But if that is the case, I apologise for thinking that you were familiar with the way we do things around here. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before, it's obvious now that either (a) you are unwilling to educate yourself about how we make rules here (in which case you are being disruptive), or (b) you are simply being disruptive to make a point. Regardless, STOP. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus exists. A small number of editors are unhappy with that consensus, and are trying to create a new one. That's the way the system works. Simply declaring that it doesn't because you don't like it isn't the way we do things here. Since you claim to be unaware of the way that we work here, I asked to you educate yourself about the way we work. Instead, you chose to be disruptive. All I ask is that you cease your disruption and let the involved editors work towards a new consensus. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And you are now one revert away from being blocked - I suggest you cool your jets. Stan (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to use Georgia on {{xt}}

It has been proposed to use Georgia on {{xt}}. It has a larger x-height than Times New Roman, so it wouldn't have the size problem.

Example

Write 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

What do you think? The discussion is at Template talk:Xt. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good cop, bad cop?

Sometimes I get the impression that you try to be the good cop to Born2cycle's bad cop. I know that's cynical of me, but if I'm right, please try to do a better job of it, because Born2cycle has his role down pat.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I can't find the merits of the arguments anywhere. I looked. I spend 2 days reading and trying to find them before I posted. The merits are lost in pounds and pounds of words, of accusations, of pointless, useless, discussion about things that are so far off the track of what this is purportedly about that I'm certain at least half the editors there don't know what Born2cycle is proposing. I'm thinking close to 100% don't care in the face of the onslaught of insults about how we're damaging Wikipedia by daring to edit any other way than under his/her command.

If Born2cycle's arguments have merits, let him/her spend some time to find them, present them, and stop attacking other editors, but rather focus on the merits of whatever it is he/she is proposing. Until the merits of his/her arguments are strong enough to stand out above the venom (meaning in his/her mind), assisting him/her in continuing to create this hostile atmosphere among plant editors will only be seen as a green light to go ahead and do this in some other area.

No other group of editors will welcome being personally attacked, insulted, and lamely passively/aggressively told they are damaging Wikipedia by their editing.

Wikipedia could stand improvement in a lot of areas, still. Editors who come here to do that could be effective if they didn't lose their message in their lack of diplomacy.

Calling us the "floral cabal," however, is the first time that anyone has accused the plant editors of working together on anything. But it also just shows that Born2cycle didn't even bother to learn anything about the plant editors as a group before starting this attack.

--KP Botany (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Champ de Mar question

I'm having trouble with two points in the newly revised Champ de Mars section. First, the sequence of events. Sources variously give differing sequences, some say Lafayette gave an order, some don't, etc... The other area I am having trouble in is the deaths; estimates, again, vary. They range from a bit more than a dozen to around 50 (seems to be the most accepted, from what I can tell) to 400 hundred, to thousands. How do we fairly represent this in the article? Lazulilasher (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering...

PManderson, a few weeks ago you wrote, "I continue to oppose this; Serge does not see the advantage of predictable names, but he is almost alone in this inability." link I wonder how you reconcile this statement with your position at flora. At the time I started the discussion at WP:NC, I was not aware of the flora guideline wording. However, it is a good example of exactly the kind of problem I was addressing. Yet at flora, it is the flora editors who are on the side of defending the "advantage of predictable names", and you, along with me, defending the advantage of using common names when possible. I assume you would agree that it's not fair to describe our agreed position at flora as "not seeing the advantage of predictable names". I wonder if you still feel that is a fair assessment of my views. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought you were one who argued the difference between Joshua Tree and Joshua tree is a distinction of significance. If so, how do you reconcile that with your settlements example of Matewan/Matawan being "the same"? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're not arguing that Matewan and Matawan are closer etymologically than are Joshua Tree and Joshua tree. That aside, I hope you can at least appreciate my argument a bit more now, and recognize that it is simply not true that I don't see the advantage of predictable names, it's just that I see the advantage of using common names as being more important. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Rollback

Hi, Pmanderson. I enabled rollback rights for you, as it looks like you want it mainly for the flagged revisions debate. There was the edit-war/block incident you had back in July, and I trust that you will not use rollback to edit-war in the future. You've been around long enough to know that misuse will result in loss of the tool, so I don't need to say any more about that. I have only been paying minor attention to the flagged revisions debate, but did expect there to be additional requests for rollback associated with it, especially if it passes. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured; the main drawback to rollback is you can't use custom edit summaries, so it's really only useful for reverting obvious vandalism. I still use the undo button for most of the reverts I make. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs on German Wikipedia

You've been stating that the median waiting time for reviewing new revisions on German Wikipedia is three weeks. I think you are misreading the report: it says that they've been keeping the all unreviewed edits at under three weeks, and that the median waiting time of those listed as unreviewed at a given time is one week. This means that the actual median waiting time for all edits made by those without the reviewer flag is significantly lower than that, since edits that are reviewed quickly don't stay on the list for very long.--ragesoss (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pao Ming Pu

Hi, the assertion that the cultural revolution in china is an infamous event is I think agreed upon by most western scholars. It might be controversial at the chinese wikipedia but it is unlikely to be controversial here. You may note that user:Keyi himself has acknowledged that Pu was repressed for 4 years during that period. What is the point of making a tempest in a teapot about well-known facts? Katzmik (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Happy-melon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kyklōpes

I can't get too excited about Category:Cyclopses vs. Category:Cyclopes; is it even a useful category? The first is probably preferable on Wikipedia simply because it is the 'popular' form. --macrakis (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Link on

Just wondering why you pasted a link to article about Obama's CIA pick on the Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial page - accident? Can I remove it? Graymornings_(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gan Ying

Somehow I missed the fact that a long time ago you added the phrase, "Gan Ying also described the adoptive monarchy of Nerva" to the article on Gan Ying. I have just added a "citation needed" tag to this statement as I am not sure this can be demonstrated, and thought I should let you know. If you do have information supporting this I would love to hear about it - even if it is only a theory. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for your reply on my Talk Page and the Gan Ying talk page. I am not sure what you mean to imply with your statement, "If you find it necessary to be silent, that would be regrettable" - I have never said anything about remaining silent and, at least on this subject, I certainly don't intend to. The point of discussion here is, I believe, about Gan Ying's account in which he says that: "Their kings are not permanent. They select and appoint the most worthy man. If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom, such as frequent extraordinary winds or rains, he is unceremoniously rejected and replaced. The one who has been dismissed quietly accepts his demotion, and is not angry."

I have always assumed that this was probably a fantastic tale Gan Ying was told (possibly by sailors) when he was in Parthia. As we know, he never managed to reach Roman territory, so all the information he gathered was, at best, second-hand. I have never thought that his account of some sort of democratic process of choosing leaders in Rome was believable.

You added a statement to the article saying that, "Gan Ying also described the adoptive monarchy of Nerva." This might be so - the timing is right - but there is no other evidence that I know of to support this assertion. That is why I put a "citation needed" tag on the claim and wrote to you to inform you I had done so. I still think Gan Ying was probably just repeating a fabulous tale. Unless there is some real evidence relating his account to Nerva's accession I think you should remove this statement. It wouldn't hurt, of course, to make it plain that Gan Ying's description of the process of choosing Rome's leaders was idealistic in the extreme, and certainly not factual. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG ArbCom request

I've posted a request for possible additional evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page movement

Hi. Reposting this message to you as I know it will be of particular interest. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Greek sources

Hi Pmanderson. You seem to be arguing that I essentially rely on Tarn for my sourcing in the Indo-Greeks, but that's quite untrue. Tarn was definitely my first introduction to the subject, but besides him I have relied most extensively on Bopearachchi and Senior. Actually I have been relying on about 30 sources (which I all own) for my work on the Indo-Greeks (listed here). It is true I do not have much leaning for A.K. Narain though (even of I created his article:), but this is more due to the general weakness of his arguments. I am looking forward to your understanding. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pmanderson. If your point is specifically about Ujjain, I think I have not used Tarn as a source, but rather the much more recent Mitchener: "A distinctive series of Indo-Greek coins has been found at several places in central India: including at Dewas, some 22 miles to the east of Ujjain. These therefore add further definite support to the likelihood of an Indo-Greek presence in Malwa" John E. Mitchener, 2002, "The Yuga Purana", p.64 (referenced with quote in the Indo-Greek kingdom article). Besides, I think you should stop qualifying me as "a dedicated believer in Tarn's most dated picture, who has no real understanding of the sources or the issues" [2]: this is highly uncivil, and, besides, quite untrue. I would appreciate if you could correct such accusations and avoid such language. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Compilation.

Hi Pmanderson. I did not create a map by myself at all. I only used existing maps, such as the Westermann map (attached, Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte), the Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula (Oxford University Press), and Narain "Coin types of the Indo-Greeks". The three maps were simply compiled to show the extent of the various sources available. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitchener

Hi Pamanderson. For your information John Edward Mitchener is a British scholar and diplomat. He is a graduate of Bristol University and received an M.A and a Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University. John Mitchener entered Britain’s diplomatic services in 1980. After positions in Istanbul, New Delhi and Berne, he was appointed British Ambassador to Armenia from 1997 to 1999. In 2000, he was appointed British Deputy High Commissioner for Eastern India, in Kolkata, India. He is the author of numerous books and articles on Indian history and religion.

For the sake of exactitude, I suggest you correct your statement here. Mitchener is indeed (among other things) a specialist of Indian history. PHG (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More on Mitchiner

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence#Ujjain submitted by Septentrionalis. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Just a friendly reminder for you to archive your talk page. It's currently running at 342kb, something which takes obscenely long to load on smaller computers. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K, and this page is currently over 10x that size. Pmanderson, would it be alright if I setup an archivebot for your talkpage? This would automatically archive any threads which had been inactive for a certain period of time, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? --Elonka 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. No thanks, I have not installed a bot because I may want to keep some old messages, as I have done at the top of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Eduard Müller (German politician)

Hallo! Due to your edits to Duchy of Pless, I think you could contribute sources from JSTOR to Eduard Müller (German politician), maybe, an article which I intend to nom for DYK. Also, you might want to archive your talk, it's over 340k and takes long to load. -- Matthead  Discuß   06:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• MBisanz did not present any evidence against you - I did. DO you have something against him? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfArb: Date delinking

Hi, I just wanted to drop a line to thank you for the proposals you made. It focussed my mind on the debate and led to my proposals. I hope you don't take my debating the points with you as anything personal (and I guess I'm not upset about being called a 'Wikilawyer' - although I didn't intend to set out to be one). I honestly believe that the sooner we can thrash out the arguments and reach a conclusion, the sooner we can get back to normality. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to debate with candour and without rancour. Let's hope everybody participates in that spirit. Sincerely --RexxS (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"POV fest"

Why did you not continue to weigh in on the Kingdom of Mysore? Your position was valuable to the FAR. I wish you had continued! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Proposal at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore

Please respond at Proposal. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think would be the most constructive approach to this whole issue of this particular article remaining FA? Would it not be better to copy edit it into compliance? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In support of Lightbot

I oppose you over the matter of LightBot. As far as I have seen, it has functioned well and I resent that you want to revoke the approval of it or try to block LightBot. You make this request again, I may initiate proceedings directly to the Arbitration Committee, bypassing the rest of the dispute resolution procedure in light of the seriousness of my concerns about your machinations against Lightmouse and his bot. AdirondackMan (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I plan to do as you ask, I read your commentary on the request for approvals so I think of you as a valid party. But if this is your wish, to take this to arbitration, let it be done in all propriety. Let this be settled like gentlemen. That's all I want. AdirondackMan (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done on your efforts to get this issue sorted. I'm really impressed. Deb (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My FlaggedRevs proposal

I felt your change was a beneficial one: What do you think of the proposal? I'm pondering moving it to the mainspace and linking to it from the trial proposals page, but want to be sure I've got something that's at least semi-developed before getting others in to help refine the proposal. Any other comments you can offer in addition to those you've already made would be helpful. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your PHG proposal

I like your explanation, which was how I interpretted it (and apparently User:Angusmclellan has interpreted it). I would also like to allow the mentor to add pages if necessary. What do you think about this language:

PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, has sole discretion to waive PHG's editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits. Similarly, PHG's mentor may expand PHG's editing restriction to any page where a consensus of other editors objects to PHG's edits. The mentor's decisions may not be appealed, although new mentors may be appointed if decisions are manifestly unreasonable.

I'm a bit more worried about missing potential problem topics than when I first posted the proposed decision. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)

I must say that I found your revert a bit unconstructive. If you think that a merger should be done, why don't you propose a merger? I think everyone agrees, as Kotniski has pointed out, that having NC(places) and NC(geoname) is idiotic. He proposed something to remedy this, and you are undoing his work, but are not contributing anything else to address the problem. Sorry to say, but his looks a bit like WP:OWN to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Papist prejudice

I saw your notes on Talk:Nestorian Stele. Lately I have been increasingly concerned about the extent of bias in the English Wikipedia. Not imbalance - the English encyclopedia will naturally have most depth on subjects of most interest to English speakers - but a tendency to be dismissive or intolerant of different cultures. We are sensitive in our use of terms that are common in our culture. Nigger, Papist and Kike point to articles that discuss the implied prejudice, Red Indian skips direct to "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" and Queer leads to a carefully balanced article. But with other cultures I sense an arrogant and perhaps racist tendency. What English speakers say about the "native" beliefs, customs and rituals is more important than what they have to say about themselves. After all, they are just natives. Apart from WP:BIAS, do you now of any good guidelines or essays in Wikipedia on the subject? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I am a bit puzzled at your response. I did not refer to the ninth or nineteenth centuries, or to the Church of the East (which I had never heard of) or to Arianism.

I find it hard to understand the theological disputes of the early Christians, although I suppose at the time they were seen as the difference between eternal joy and eternal damnation. As far as I care to explore the subject, there seem have been various intense debates in the early Christian church such as whether a Gentile could become a Christian, whether Christ has a separate nature and divinity or is purely a manifestation of the one God, the nature of the Holy Ghost and so on. It seems that many of the Syriac Christian groups at first inclined towards the Nestorian view of the separation of the divine and human elements in Christ, but most later shifted towards the more orthodox and nuanced view formulated by Babai the Great. I may be wrong on this, which bothers me, but I get the sense that although the Assyrian Church of the East recognizes Nestorius as a saint, they dislike being labeled "Nestorian".

The English language is wonderfully flexible. Wikipedia articles should ideally use only the most clear and unambiguous form. But the English culture is riddled with prejudice. Wikipedia articles should avoid prejudice where possible, presenting a neutral point of view. My concern is that in some articles about distant times and peoples, or even just in the titles of the articles, we are reflecting the common and uninformed prejudices of the English-speaking culture, rather than giving our readers a clear and unbiased view. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Partly I am looking for accuracy, clarity and consistency. The article itself says that the adjective "Nestorian" is incorrect, and that is backed up by related articles on the Assyrian Church of the East and Babai the Great. These articles seem to have solid sources - I have no reason to doubt them. Partly I am indeed trying to be sensitive to the views of the members of this church who are struggling for their existence in Iraq today. If we can avoid a needless insult, we should. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For constructive collaboration in real time on several Naming Conventions without useless reverting , I award you the Teamwork Barnstar Jasy jatere (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bank of United States

A quick note to let you know that I moved the article to Bank of United States. We can, and should, think about the title further on the talk page but there is no sense in prolonging the move discussion without knowing what to move it to and New York Bank of United States was clearly the wrong one. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles

A drafted new version of the Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles has been started here. Still at issue are specific naming conventions for Thai royals and nobles and settlements. As contributor to previous discussions on the guideline, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand#Updating the Manual of Style (part 2). Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter proposal on chronological linking

Please share your ideas at User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. -- Kendrick7^talk

Nörten-Hardenberg RM

I responded to a concern of yours at Talk:Nörten-Hardenberg. — AjaxSmack 15:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "I trust that will converge" mean? Also, I replied to some comments at Talk:Marko Đoković. I am a strong supporter of WP:UE but I don't think that merely dropping diacritics can per se make a name or any other string of words "English." — AjaxSmack 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all bout it!

I sense that you have got bored of the shenanegans over at the RFARB. It's dragging on, and now, even Rubin and Cole say Tennis expert has lost it. I hope it's over soon too. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

bolzano-bozen

Actually, the reason I stopped bothering about South Tyrol was discussions like the one about Meran-Merano taking place at WP:NCGN now. I think it's a big waste of time, some people really should get a life. Markussep ^Talk 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-Aristotelian De mirabilibus auscultationibus

Given your interest in the paradoxographers, I thought you might be interested in this just-published review. Wareh (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on ambiguous words

Who the hell gives you the right to tag that RfC as an essay after it has been in place for less than 24 hours? Especially as you clearly do not understand the issues involved? And especially as the guideline on such proposals is that they should stay in place for at least a week?!

The proposal is NOT about the wprd "myth" - it is about the use of ambiguous words - an issue that has proven contentious in many articles.

The proposal boils down to this: if a word is ambiguous, make sure people understand what you mean by it.

What is vague about that? How does that warrant the idiotic comment that "it could preclude WP being written in a natural language at all"?--FimusTauri (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello,

I have taken on the rather challenging task of fixing a core policy that is hopelessly broken. If you boil my proposal down to a philosophical position, it is that we should be leaving people to do the sensible thing, rather than making prescriptive rules that they are going to break anyhow. Since I believe you share this basic position, and I value your opinion whether you end up agreeing with me or not, can I invite you to get involved before I publicise it? If you're interested, start at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Proposal.

Hesperian 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the claim that titles should be NPOV will open a door to a great deal of nonsense. There is nothing new there, except perhaps the example. It is already articulated as policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming. Hesperian 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Especially" not "only". If you think NPOV applies only to descriptive article names, then you should be over at WP:NPOV trying to correct what must be an egregiously misleading paragraph. I think you'll have trouble convincing people, though; after all, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia."

What we've written here seems fairly straightforward, but I can't shake this nagging feeling that we are talking past each other and may actually agree. Do we both agree that

1. An article on a book entitled "Jews Really Suck" should be named Jews Really Suck?
2. Battle of Pinjarra is not entirely neutral, but is nonetheless the best name for the article? (read the first paragraph)
3. Descriptive names should use NPOV descriptions?

Can you think of an example where you suspect we would disagree? Hesperian 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you're still going on about Latin and Neo-Latin, shall I assume you never saw this? Certainly you never offered a refutation of it. Hesperian 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the above; you were right. I failed to appreciate the crucial WP:NPOV line:

"Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."

This is rather poorly worded—the connection with descriptive/prescriptive is vaguely analogous rather than literally correct—and the insistence on using the most common name is the kind of prescriptive sillyness I am trying to get away from. I can imagine situations where the most common name is biased, but an unbiased name runs a very close second. Forcing people to use the biased name is inappropriate in this case. Let them immerse themselves in the context, weigh the merits of each, and choose as they think best.

So I've rewritten the neutrality section. It still ain't right, but I think you will find the general premise much less objectionable.

Hesperian 13:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationalism

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

E.g., i.e., and etc.

Hello, Pmanderson … I don't want to get into an edit war with Reywas92 (talk · contribs), but if you agree with me, perhaps you could revert their revert of my changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, to show that I am not alone in this opinion? Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) _{16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}

Province of Bolzano/Bozen

Hello Pmanderson. Long ago it was decided to include in the title both the Italian name and the German one, similarily to what happened to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (the region including the province). What we were discussing about was simply the hyphen/slash issue. I think it is the time to make a broad discussion about the title of the article about the Province of Bolzano. Would you like to start it or to participate actively? Can you lead us into this discussion and help us to find out the best solution? Obviously, if the outcome of the discussion will be again something including both "Bolzano" and "Bozen" (as I believe it will happen), we should use the slash instead the hyphen as they are simply the same thing in different languages. Differently we should probably discuss also about the article about the region. --Checco (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember well those discussions and I definitely agree with you on the fact that having a single name, the most used in English or the one of the official language of the country, would be definitely better. However I know how difficult is to reach such a result. We need people like you (and also me! I don't identify as an Italian, actually...) who are neither Italian or German... Can you help us? In the meantime, why do you oppose the slash proposal? In the present situation, with the oppositions of Ezhiki and you, we won't change the status quo and we will even have something incorrect in the title, a hyphen instead of a slash. --Checco (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

+1 I don't get the connection between your statement and the question, wheter we should use a hyphen or a slash... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources of revenue

I just wanted to let you know that this edit was an accident and was not part of the discussion between myself and Hlj. Good Catch and I will try and watch for that.--Kumioko (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I already stopped changing the section titles although I still believe it is generally confusing to the reader and editors to call a reference list a note. There are simply too many other changes and edits to be made to WP without arguing about the symantics of whether Reference or Notes is more appropriate.--Kumioko (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bozcaada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. The same applies to Gökçeada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such.

Bozcaada is the official name of the island and internationally recognized as such. For instance if someone wants to send a letter and writes "Tenedos" as the address, then the letter will be returned. (If there is a return address) This is also the case even when someone writes the official name Bozcaada along the obsolete name "Tenedos".

The same applies to Gökçeada the official name of the island and also internationally recognized as such. And not the obsolete name of "Imros". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.76.42 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Harry Harrison

William Henry Harrison is currently a featured article candidate. You're knowledgeable about this era of US history, if I remember right, so your input, if you have any interest, would be welcome. —Kevin Myers 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hobojaks and User:Taits Wrath

It seems to me they have similar style and behavior, and despite editing during similar time intervals, always manage to avoid overlapping. Should something be done? --C S (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See also link from formal concept analysis to Raimundus Lullus

I am puzzled by [3]. I wouldn't be surprised if he had written about something related, but our Lullus article doesn't seem to discuss it. I think at the very least you should provide some context with the link. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input

Would be welcome here and below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Your are the subject of an ANI, here. Greg L (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Iotated/Iotified letters

Is a vowel with ὑπογεγραμμένη usually (or indeed ever) called "iotified"? In the sort of linguistics that I'm familiar with, a jotated, or iotated, or in Unicode-speak iotified vowel is one preceded by a [j]. Historically, indeed, a vowel with ὑπογεγραμμένη was followed by a [j], but do people actually refer to this as iotification? In any case, the question we're dealing with relates strictly to characters (graphemes) which originated as ligatures of Ι + existing vowel-character. I'm fairly confident that there are none such in Greek. Лудольф (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Talk:Gdansk.2FVote

Discussion ongoing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a perfect example of how a bad wording in NCGN policy makes problems (editors want to use modern name for historical entity where it shouldn't be used!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion, which name should be used in Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey? How do we define a majority of sources? What if its 60/40 as may be the case there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alawi

You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:‘Alawi. If you care, please weigh in on a modification of the move request there. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you have any comments on the last 3+-way RM? — AjaxSmack 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mjöllnir

Hi, I left you a comment at Talk:Mjöllnir. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Carinthia (Province)

Re: your Comment of April 6: Crystal ball or no crystal ball - the small area of the Austrian Duchy of Carinthia that in 1918 was ceded to Yugoslavia never was a Yugoslav or Slovene province, and the much larger present-day region of Slovenia that now goes by the name of "Koroška" and whose "Carinthian" territory covers less than half of that region's area is no province either, as Slovenia is not organized in provinces. So why should anyone insist on preserving that wrong description?--Marschner (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In my original move I expressed my objection against the use of the false term province for that region, and this remains my argument:
It isn't a province, so why call it one?

By the way - and this does not concern my objection against the use of the term "province" - , look at this for the use of Koroška: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=koro%C5%A1ka&aq=0&oq=Koroska
Or read this:
http://www.stgeorgescross.co.uk/world-flags/allflags/si-03.html#sta Quod erat demonstrandum --Marschner (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Naming conventions

Perhaps this agreement on naming places in Upper Hungary/today Slovakia should also be worked into WP:NCGN somehow. Squash Racket (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit war over important templates

Both of you - please do not edit war over key templates used on guideline pages. It is completely inappropriate to duel back and forth over wording that is there to stop people from edit warring. I have protected the page for now; I suggest you take your debate to the talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

fall

Thanks for your kind words. Tony (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS date discussion

I saw this. Do you have to be so obnoxious? It is a discussion about a minor (even, dare I say it, trivial) piece of formatting. Throwing out terms like "half-educated" and "bullies" doesn't seem all that likely to lead to a civil discussion or a harmonious consensus. Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Critique

Hi there! Would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will inspire me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1

Hi, if you're happy with the changes I wondered if you wouldn't mind striking through your comments on the above page? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DERM

I went ahead and created a Manual of Style for dermatology-related articles, and have been working on it with another user. This specific MOS is still in its infancy, but I wanted to get your feedback at this point. What issues do you think should be addressed? Are there any important issues related to dermatology cotent which you think should be added? Thanks again for you help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Just for the record, I am quoted completely out of context and having what I said completely twisted in your pathetic attempt to defile me in your last posting there. Don't bother replying. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Distruptive editing

Check your editing style. To claim that a large article Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is "utter blithering nonsense" and tag it with POV and factuality, is an affront to all the good work being done there by a whole host of editors. Please read disruptive editing to better understand why your editing style is creating problems.Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence

I removed your sections from the above page again because they are not evidence. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Guide#Evidence. If you would like to provide comments on the evidence do so on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Responses to a party are not evidence, nor are comments. Please take a look at the Arbitration Guide above for a better understanding of what the Arbitrators require. If you believe you have evidence that will add to the case, please feel free to add it. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Contual low-intensity Cantor-babble

Pmanderson,

I'm getting pretty tired of all this back and forth on Cantor re Judaism. Of course I would very gladly do something to address the issue myself, but as you may or may not know, I no longer have access to English-language libraries. I only have access to the Internet. Would you and perhaps others be willing to access all of the sources listed etc. and take on the task of revamping the "Ancestry" section, addressing each and every statement/point in a non-OR and non-POV manner? Geometry guy recommended your name in this respect. I'm also contacting Paul August and Trovatore. Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Germer-Stadion move

Hi, just a thought - if you move the stadium to the "correct" name as per the conventions, why don't you fix the text in the same instance then? Madcynic (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FOF

What, exactly, does FoF mean? I can't figure it out, and friend-of-a-friend doesn't seem to fit the context. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB edit

First I want to apologize for the mistake and I will try and watch that one. Truthfully though I do thousands of edits and mistakes are bound to happen from time to time. I will however NOT promise to not touch that article or any other. Mistakes are unfortunately part of the business of editing and the fact that you caught the mistake merely proves that the concept of WP works. I also want to say that I am disapointed in your attitude towards AWB and your attitude of ownership over this article. I take pride in the articles I edit and create as well, but I also know that I do not possess ownership overthem eventhough I frequently do not agree with edits made to them from other editors. Additionally, as a seasoned editor you should be well aware of the net rewards of using AWB to the project and if not I recommend paying closer attention.--Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind request

Could I have your input on that? Thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence

Your evidence currently stands at over 1600 words. Please refactor it so it is under the 1000 word maximum in the next 24 hours. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response here. I used this tool to do the word count with. It now stands at 1257 so could you reduce it down a touch more please? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology

sorry! I'll be more careful in future. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins noticeboard report concerning you

Please see WP:AN/I#Unilateral action at WP:Linking and WP:Build the Web.--Kotniski (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit capitalized for mindset and numina?

Thanks for participating in the talk at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Holy_Spirit.3F. I agree with what you've written about capitalizing "Holy Spirit" and I hope you can offer a comment on the Talk page for the article "Holy Spirit". Talk:Holy_Spirit#Capitalization_II

In the article section Holy_Spirit#Non-Trinitarian_views, the section intro and subsections show that most nontrinitarian Christians do not believe the "holy spirit" to be a person (that is, a proper noun). They believe it's a mindset or an impersonal force (like numina to repeat the term you used). Yet, even when the term is not used as a proper noun in the article, the term is forcibly capitalized by editors apparently more interested in trinitarianism than grammar.

I don't mind capitalizing Holy Spirit, but it's wrong to do it without thinking, as most do. I believe that capitalizing non-proper-noun instances of the term to be unscholarly and ungrammatical. You may be interested in sharing your thoughts there at Talk:Holy_Spirit#Capitalization_II.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beginning Stages of...

Hi! You probably watch WP:RM, but in case you missed it, they've just reopened the move discussion at Talk:The Beginning Stages of... Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your farewell. If you happen to think of it, and wouldn't mind, if there's ever a decision in the case use Wikipedia to e-mail me. I'll check in from time to time. In the meantime, I have bruises and airbag/seatbelt burns to heal. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 19:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on template:fx. I really do appreciate your comments.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Mountaineering and Climbing Project

Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe that they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS

Hi, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#What.27s_wrong_with_MOS you said, "I think this would make a good essay, which is why I have continued to engage; it would be better if written by someone who intends to stick around." I've started at User:Philcha/Essays/MOS Critique. Given the size of the topic its structure ia a shambles, but that will come. I could do with some feedback and input, and yours would be valuable because you've been around to see much of the growth of the MOnSter. Please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/MOS Critique if you're interested. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

your comment

Very good—I entirely agree. But perhaps you might make clearer what I think you mean: that it is very odd indeed to put restrictions on stylistic editing on which MOS is silent, while not restricting stylistic editing that is within the ambit of MOS. Either type could be the subject of disagreements, and in fact stylistic matters outside MOS's ambit are much less likely to be the subject of reversion. Tony (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Tony (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like our chances: they seem to think people will "game" the restrictions. I cannot see how on earth that would happen, but I've lost hope that the "remedies" will be appropriate. One wishes for a more detailed explanation of the logic and intention of the Committee (not to mention of the term "indefinite", as we now understand it) rather than their putting so much time into writing and endorsing the raft of motherhood statements in the first half.Tony (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The motherhood statements that receive virtually unanimous votes by the arbs are a serious waste of time for drafter, voting arbs and readers. They repeat policies and other widely accepted principles (even a pillar in one case, do I remember?). ArbCom is flooded with unfinished business and has taken nearly five months to get this far. Restating principles and policies again and again is actually weak, don't you think? Or even ludicrous? Tony (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at the dates proposed decision talk page

Your comment here doesn't seem to be very constructive. At the very least, can you move it to your own section? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "your own section" on a general talk page. As the person who separated the responses out by editor, I can tell you it was not my intent to stifle discussion amongst the various responses. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The request for comment by the arbitrator has a clear implication of permitting editors to respond in a manner that is away from the normal comment/response atmosphere of a talk page. There is nothing to stop Pmanderson from replying in his section (or elsewhere). You, Locke Cole, are not a clerk in this issue, so I respectfully request that you leave myself and Pmanderson to sort this issue out on our own (we are more than capable of doing that without your assistance). The letter of the law is not the issue here—instead, we should all be fostering an atmosphere that permits us to move forward constructively.  HWV258  23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by complying with WP:TPO and not outright removing another editors comment. You have NO RIGHT, whatsoever, to remove another editors comment made in good faith. The sections were put there by me (and copied by the additional respondents) to make navigation simpler, not to create issues of ownership which you seem to be displaying. I'll note other sections have replies by others than the named editor, and you don't see those comments being removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps those replies are too the point? Please note from Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments—Point 3: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article...". Point 4: "Removing personal attacks and incivility...". Point 11: "If a thread has veered off its original subject..." all indicate that at certain times it is permissible to edit/remove comments on a talk page. So "NO RIGHT" is definitely not right.

Anyhow, CKatz has indicated that you now stay out of things. Thanks.  HWV258  23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll note those bullet points are all under a lead stating "editing another editors comments", not "removing another editors comments". Still not your place and I find this form of bullying on your part, the removal of another contributors comments, very discouraging and highly inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As has happened so many times before, I find that the more you are pushed into supporting your actions, the less I can respect your responses. Specifically, "Deleting material..." and "Removing.." are covered under that section as they are clearly a form of "editing". Applying the label of "bullying" to my actions (actions now supported by an administrator) staggers belief. Just a friendly word of advice: saying "sorry" (at least occasionally) is also a method of bringing people around to your way of thinking.  HWV258  23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To Pmanderson: please note the request made by the arbitrator: "Useful responses will not be directed to criticism of particular editors". Your response to (and in) my section does nothing to address the issues at hand (rather it perpetuates the frictional atmosphere that we are all keen to get away from). I respect your right to comment on my viewpoint, and request that you move your comment to a new section below the "An arbitrator's question for all parties" section. Thank you.  HWV258  23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, please note that your comments are bound to elicit responses, and quite possibly produce a healthy thread of replies. Such a trail would be inappropriate for the section in which you first posted. Would you like me to establish your comment in a new section on the page so appropriate responses can begin?  HWV258  00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

HWV258 proposed FoF

Could I please ask you to reconsider your posting of proposed FoFs about HWV258's reverts to Workshop? At a time when several of us are arguing against overly-harsh sanctions (possibly with effect - see Remedy 33.6), you are inviting someone to post parallel FoFs about Locke Cole, who also reverted twice. I accept that you are accurate in your interpretation of WP:TPO, but you also will recognise that Locke's actions are indefensible as edit-warring, particularly when we have clerks to do those jobs. Frankly, the time has come to try to dampen down the flames, not pour more fuel on them. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bern / Berne

Hello. I am puzzled by your opposition to the move back of Berne to Bern. This has nothing to do with whether it is in a German speaking canton (the canton is actually German and French speaking} but is in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions where the policy clearly states that Bern should be used. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have been here for three years. You should have learnt by now:

• All our policies and guidelines are makeshift assemblages of Scotch tape and piano wire. Please read WP:PRO on a related point.
• Obscure subpages of Wikiprojects are neither policies nor guidelines.
• The force of a guideline consists only of the arguments it makes and the consensus it represents. (So phrased, because key policies may differ - a theoretical point, since they have a very strong consensus; but this isn't one.)
• Guidelines should therefore be changed when consensus proves not to exist.
• Even something that claims to be policy would not be, if it was written by one editor back in 2005 and undiscussed since (although such a policy tag would probably have been removed).
• Guidelines which make assertions of fact should be ignored, if (as appears to be the case here) the assertion is wrong. It is preferable to be cautious about making guidelines assert things before seeing if the fact is verifiable. :Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A trifle aggresive in response to a simple question, I would have thought. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions is not simply an "Obscure subpage of a Wikiproject". It is the page directly linked from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for advice on Switzerland, and therefore the page to which most people seeking advice on naming conventions would be directed. Indeed, I note that you are not unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) yourself, having made 14 contributions to it in the last 2 months.

If I read you correctly, you are claiming that the proposed reversion to Berne's former title of Bern is because the canton is German speaking and/or there is a difference of useage between American English and British English. The fact is that both versions are used in the United Kingdom and in English language texts in Switzerland. Where there is not a clear preference in English for the non-local version, unlike Cologne, Geneva, Lucerne or Florence, there seems no reason not to use the local version. In this respect, Bern would be treated the same way as Basel. If you wish, please reply here as it makes it easier to follow the discussion than swapping to and fro between user pages. I'll watch for a reply. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tin-pot dictators

I thought I'd spare the arbcom pages from my views on politics. You are of course right about FDR, because you care about a country that separates legislature from executive. In the tin-pot democracy where I live, we elect the entire legislature and executive simultaneously at a general election (you already knew that, of course). The result here is that when a party has a majority, it is expected to enact its entire manifesto - and is criticised if it doesn't! I guess that colours my view of process somewhat differently from yours, but I understand your point, even if the concept is a little alien to me. I guess it's noteworthy that governing parties here rarely receive more than about 40-45% of the popular vote. Imagine how we'd be governed if we had to get popular consensus on every piece of legislation! --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Americans also "elect the entire legislature and executive simultaneously at a general election"—well, at every second election. Tony (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes. The elections occur at the same time (on the same date, barring special elections due to deaths, etc), but the time in office (years) varies from office to office. Presidents serve four years. Senators serve six years (two Senators per state). Representatives serve two years (some minimum number per state, based on population). Together, members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives form the United States Congress (a bicameral legislature). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks

Yes, I still think this article needs considerable improvement. --macrakis (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Could do with your content expertise

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Diocletianic_Persecution/archive1#Diocletianic_Persecution Tony (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking at this one, PMA. Your advice was expressed in authoritative terms. I'll have a look tomorrow and will contact AD later for a final check. Tony (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Diocletianic Persecution

I've re-checked all primary source citations and added bibliographic information for the translations I've used. I hope you'll find the article satisfactory now. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[In reply to a comment on Tony's talkpage] Uh, PMAnderson, the article does not claim, at present, that its author has read the Bollandists. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Strategikon

Hello! I reverted your move, and feel I should explain why: the term, unlike most names used for Byzantine books (e.g. De Administrando Imperio etc), is actually the original Greek one, transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Numerous publications, from the ODB to the English translation by G.T. Dennis, use the form Strategikon, which even in Google appears to be the preferred form. The older variant Strategicon is also used, but less frequently nowadays. In the case of the Tactica, the alternate transliteration Taktika is also often encountered; the former is still better known, presumably because the book itself has been known for a far longer period, and has become established. From a linguistic perspective however, the term Tactica is correct as it exists in Latin, whilst Strategicon is merely a pseudo-latinized transliteration. I do therefore think we should prefer the more "native" form, in common with most Byzantine articles in WP. Regards, Constantine ✍ 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, not exactly: Strategicon is the latinized title of this specific book. I have not seen it elsewhere in Latin usage, in contrast with Tactica, which, as "tactics" was used in Latin. Either way, I do not see the connection with the demotic language here. Neither title is the "correct" one, but the "k" form is the one by which the book is best known and referred to. If a reference work like the ODB uses it that way, and if the only English-language translation uses it also, we should too. It has nothing to do with personal preferences or a Greek POV, if that's what you mean. Constantine ✍ 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as for WP:GREEK, it covers Ancient and modern usage, but not Byzantine transliteration. Consensus on Byzantine names in WP seems to be using the more direct transliterations. If we have "Manuel Komnenos" instead of "Manuel Comnenus", it is illogical to not extend that to all such articles. Constantine ✍ 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is outright rudeness. I am not proposing moving the page to Στρατηγικόν, OK? So take your talk about self-indulgence elsewhere, please. Both forms are equally comprehensible (or not) to an English-speaker. I am merely in favour of using the form most used for the term (from Google, at least, Strategikon[4] is more relevant than Strategicon[5]) and the one which is gaining in currency. So clearly, per usual naming rules, it should be "k". Your opinion about the ODB formulas is noted, and in some aspects I agree, but it is being increasingly used, and is the form used in the most pertinent text: the only English-language translation, which is the means through which most English-language readers will probably know it. In any case, do as you wish. I really am not going to pursue a dispute over a letter. But if I may make a suggestion, restrain yourself on expressing opinions about people who you don't even know... Constantine ✍ 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, but no. You responded to what you "thought" you saw, because I am Greek. That was prejudice. More "native" implies no preference, it is merely descriptive, since the transliteration with the "k" obviously is intended (not by me, but by the Byzantinists who first used it) to closer resemble the original Greek. I realise too well the limitations of written messages, but you made too many assumptions about personal preferences and threw AGF out of the window. On the same token, your opposition to that form falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since, as terms, both are equally valid. And if the "k" form is predominant in German and Spanish ([6] vs [7]) as well, languages which have no preference for any particular transliteration and which use the Latin terms like De Ceremoniis as well, then that is IMO one more indication in support of my position. Also,in my experience here, Google searches are habitually used to establish the "most widespread" variant. Nevertheless, as I said, I rest my case, since the issue is rather trivial. Constantine ✍ 12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Most modern academic publications use the term "Strategikon" and not the "latinized" form "Strategicon". Since there is no specific academic treatise on the preferred use of the term in English, we can check Googlebooks, where it is very clear, that "k" is much preferred over "c" in 21st century publications, which of course is a very good sample and that makes it a good "test". And of course, I also find the use of an argument that has to do with a fellow wikipedian's declared or possible ethnicity offensive. The correct spelling of a word has nothing to do with nationalism, especially when the same person proves it by not creating any problems with the transliteration of other words in English like "Phocas". GK1973 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR

It seems that discussion is occurring in several locations. Could you please comment at Talk:Sophocles/GA1 on the status of this article in terms of retaining its rating.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Plebs

Since you've got Cassell's Latin Dictionary and have gone to the effort of finding the appropriate entry, could you add a reference to the article? Nev1 (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any progress on this? A referenced explanation really needs to be added to the article and since you've already looked up the relevant source I was hoping you could do it. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your undoing of Quincy Adams

Please explain to me the logic of changing the redirect of Quincy Adams back to John Quincy Adams from the redirect request I made and had subsequently approved. I don't believe that it was a nickname of JQA, or otherwise a term that searchers would use to research JQA.

Therefore, I find that the redirecting to Qunicy Adams MBTA Station page is much more appropriate per this section of WP:REDIRECT.

I have listed it for discussion. Please make your opinion on this known in applicable section of the WP:RFD page. 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Mosque of Cordov/ba

• Please get this move dispute sorted out, at Talk:Great Mosque of Cordova#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that we have been asked to state only one choice of proposal in the Macedonia discussions (see the top of the RfC pages). Unfortunately you won't be able to give a second and third choice. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I merely wanted to make you aware of the request posted by the referees at the top of each of the RfC pages: "Please endorse only one proposal, and leave a (preferably) short comment if you wish." A couple of other editors have endorsed multiple proposals but have subsequently removed their excess endorsements. I guess there's nothing to stop you leaving multiple endorsements, but I don't think you should expect the referees to take any notice of your second and third choices. This appears to be a one-choice-only game. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And in reply to the comments you've made on my talk page, please address any concerns you have to the referees - I'm simply letting you know what rules they've given us. I should also add that the ArbCom seems to be happy with the process so far, given that Rlevse has intervened in it several times to support the referees (most recently only a few hours ago) and at least five arbitrators have commented on matters relating to the process. But by all means please feel free to speak out if you're unhappy with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's up to you. I'm not going to try to persuade you of any course of action. The rules we've been given may not be ideal, but they're what we've been asked to work with. Personally, I don't think there's going to be much support for attempting to change the rules at this stage. The discussion - not a poll as such, since the refs are going to deal with the outcome on the basis of arguments submitted rather than weight of numbers on each side - has been open for 24 hours at this point, so it may be a bit late in the day to change its method now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The refs are User:J.delanoy, User:Shell Kinney and User:Fritzpoll. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And they were appointed by the Arbitration Committee to deal with this as a result of the recent brouhaha. Yeah, I know that it would be best if we could list all our choices in order, but they have indicated they don't want that. I think one of the reasons would be the amount of work involved in counting multiple votes from everybody, and the possibility or probability that someone might make an error, or later say they made an error, or whatever. I think it would be found reasonable and not create any trouble to add comments in the single "vote" regarding what other options we might prefer if that one were not accepted, as long as they remain within the single statement though. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the idea is more that it's not supposed to be a vote anyway, so "counting" things will be only a minor aspect of the evaluation. In any case, I agree with John about one thing: there's no problem about stating second and third preferences, many of us have done so, but it can be done just as well within a single statement. Since evaluation will not be by way of counting but by way of registering arguments, it doesn't really make that much of a difference where those arguments get stated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And the one thing I think they're really hoping to avoid is someone trying to game the system after the fact and say, "Oh, I didn't mean to offer my primary support to this idea which didn't win approval, but to this one which did", and then maybe changing their minds again depending on the results there, and on and on and on. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour

As it is obvious that you have no idea about how to behave in a civil way, I encourage you to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules. I advice you to stop speculating about other contributors' nationalities and motives, as that is completely irrelevant, it is factual arguments that decide.JdeJ (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I retract the first part of the comment as it is not likely to be helpful, but my warning over uncivilty remains. We see far too many cases of contributors trying to silence other contributors by refering to irrelevant issues such as nationality, race, gender and similar issues. Use factual arguments instead!JdeJ (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

I undid your undo on Smedley Butler. Per the MOS "of" should not be sandwiched between month and year. For example it should not be October of 2009 but should read October 2009. I admit that changing image to file was of limited value but since I was there making the other change I did it at the same time. --Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war over something as petty as this but your opinion that the consensus opinion is stupid is also quite foolish as well.. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request for Meran

There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is understandable. Thank you for explaining. In enough time you won't have to deal with my incompetence anymore. :P —harej (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Unfortunately I have had to report you at ANI [8]. I have warned you about your comments about other users' nationalities several times, both on this talk page and in the discussion, but as you continue to use them I have filed the report.JdeJ (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merano/Meran

Hi, since you asked me to comment: I try to stay away from South Tyrol naming issues since I know it will only frustrate me. At least the double names haven't reappeared, that's positive. As I recall the difference in English usage between Merano and Meran wasn't overwhelming, but there was a small preference for Merano (maybe 2:1, maybe less). Given the present move controversy (looks even worse then the discussions with Taalo/Icsunonove), I don't think the time is right for me to rejoin the discussion. Markussep ^Talk 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks

Are you willing to help in evaluating the problems in Names of the Greeks? The article is now at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Names of the Greeks/archive1. It is acknowledged that it has clear problems, dating back at least a year, but there is no strategy on how to fix them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on here. The F.A.R. cited above is named 'archive1', so I'd think it was not active, but in fact it was just created yesterday. --macrakis (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please desist

From litering my talk page. It is not appreciated and you will be reported for your incivility next time you do. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Also kindly read Charmidis 164e. Now.--Xenovatis (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Naming Conventions

Please be informed that I have sought clarifications to your editing of the above. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, the request has been moved to WP:AE following advice of MBisanz. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing the merge of Chameria into Cham Albanians here. Please feel free to weigh in. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Pmanderson. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology)

Hi, could you take a look at the FAR for this article? Several editors have worked to bring it up to standards, and it would be nice if you could verify that everything is good to go on the content side. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Historical sources on Alexander the Great

Hi , would you comment on the Categories for discussion ? thanks a lot Catalographer (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the beginning of the article Sources on Alexander the Great Catalographer (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Senedd

Hi, can you let me know if I have addressed your point on the above article? Seth Whales (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I will have a go at a 2nd Peer Review and FAC for one more time. If I don't get the article through then, I will give in. It is very unlikely (whatever the outcome), that I will ever go for FA again after this second attempt. Seth Whales (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Los damit

Hi PManderson, a German speaker would rather say or write weg damit instead of los damit, if he wants something to begone. -- Emdee (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Laches (general)

Actually since "general" is an ambiguous term, "Laches (person)" may have been more specific, as the only other person so named, is only known from a preserved list of Archons, and is completely covered in the article. "Laches (general)" might be taken for a general discussion of the concept of laches. --Bejnar (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic

"In this case, Born2cycle is right.". Trying to give me a heart attack??? LOL! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Attalus I

Are you still on a weak keep for this one? It looks well-written. Have your qualms over referencing been fixed? Tony (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll enter a "Keep" at the Attalus FARC. I left a note at Sedden asking to be contacted if it returns to Peer Review. Tony (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks and RFAR

You wrote:

• If you don't like the drama, vote against the candidate; if you think it seriously disruptive, go to ArbCom. [9]

and

• If you think I am wrong about that, take Bish** to ArbCom; ... [10]

Then you wrote:

• Asking for sanctions against a party (and cutting off Bishzilla is a fairly severe one) should make Will Beback a party; asking for them on patently invalid grounds should result in penalties.[11]

I followed your advice, so I don't understand why you now write that I should be sanctioned for raising this with the ArbCom. I didn't ask for sanctions agasint anyone -- I merely asked for the ArbCom to address the issue of alternate accounts. Could you please explain why you told me to go to the ArbCom if this is how you feel about it?   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At the policy talk page you seemd to say it was a matter for the ArbCom, and on the RfAR page you seemd to say it isn't against policy, so I'm mixed up about where you think a change would have to occur. The idea that objecting to the existince os sock puppets is a violation of (which policy?) worthy of sanction seems inappropriate. I don't understand your animosity. I'm not calling for the banning of any editor, just a small change in a policy. If that offends you I'm sorry, but I'm only doing what I think is best for Wikipedia. Socks are an enormous problem. If you don't agree then that's OK. There's no need to get personal.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Attalus I

Hi there. You have contributed to the Attalus I discussion, and commented on it (and on my remarks there) at Tony's talk page, so i thought I would pop by here. I am curious about your dismissiveness of a discussion of sources in cases like this. As I understand it, everyone agrees that Livy is the main source of information about Attalus I. We thus have a roman historian, who (according to the WP Livy article) made use of Polybius, writing about a figure whose life was lived roughly 200 years before Livy's accounts. There is scholarship about Livy's style and historiography (about which I know nothing, as I have previously said), and the WP article on Livy says of him, amongst other things, "Livy's writing style was poetic and archaic in contrast to Julius Caesar's and Cicero's styles" and that "he often wrote from the Romans' opponent's point of view in order to accent the Romans' virtues in their conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean". I will accept this account in good faith, though the Livy entry lacks in-line cites. In all of these circumstances, it seems to me less than good academic practice to then present to the lay reader an account of Attalus I that makes no comment on how we have come to this account. If modern reliable sources have synthesised archaeological findings and the works of Livy, Polybius and others, have weighed up all that evidence and drawn conclusions, then we can readily simply report these here, without a long discussion of those modern sources. That would be normal practice. But the in-line cites indicated that Livy and other historical sources (i won't call them primary sources) were being directly used as evidence. Now, I am happy to see what Paul August has done in recent days, bringing the contemporary analysis directly to bear on the article text. But why would you conclude that failing to discuss the sources used by this article (and by historians of the period) "is no great loss"? Most of all, why argue that at FA? (incidentally, having read the dust jacket comments on Green's book, it seems some discussion of sources might be well advised). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

alt accounts

You're taking a hard line against the tightening of the conditions for undisclosed alt accounts. "Disruption" is a rather vague concept, and may not cover uses that you or I would consider regrettable. The clandestine double voting in an RfC, for example, isn't immediately disruptive (unless we discover it); this seems to be going on a lot under our noses. Don't you think the culture needs to be shifted away from the relatively free use of such accounts, to at least minimise ID deception. It's so much effort by admins and so much potential mistrust within the fabric of the community.

Would you be willing to specify a list of reasons for which (1) no declaration is required, and (2) no declaration and no secure listing are required? Tony (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Measurements in figures

IIRC, you said it was you who added "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures ..." to MOSNUM. Could you take a look at WT:MOSNUM#Question: changing prose to measurements? I know you're banned from there, but you can answer here or on my talk page. --A. di M. 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tighina/Bender

Hello User:Pmanderson. Just thought I'd celebrate the fact we're in agreement for once! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions

Hi, following your comment on its talk, I amended the wording here. Besides, I commented on the requested move, but apparently it's already too late. -- User:Docu at 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mathematics

I honestly don't care about whether the article deserves GA status or not; edits such as this are disruptive. I will report you to ANI if you continue this, although I hope it won't come down to that. If you have a problem with the good article process, please bring it up at WT:GAN or a relevant project page. Regards. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On a quite unrelated note, ArbCom has started a motion that, if it passes, would allow you and other similarly topic-banned editors to return to the MOS discussions. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody else will...

Consider this your only warning to refrain from lying about other editors, as you did about me in Cobi's RfA. You knew what you were saying was untrue, and it deliberately painted me in a bad light. Do it again and I will seek an admin to block you for deliberate personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anderson, please be more aware of the potential of your posts to be inflammatory. Comments like this: "and Roux' need to reply to every objection turns me off." are generally unwanted on WP. Tony (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Low value link at Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures

I noticed that you inserted/reinserted a link at the above article. I would point out that the article's title actually refers to Baidu Baike, and not Baidu Inc. it is like making a link to Wikimedia Foundation when you are referring to Wikipedia. The link is therefore of little value, and I have reverted you. Thank you for your comprehension. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I read this statement somewhere, and suspect you may be familiar with it: "Please leave any article on my watchlist alone." Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

George F. Kennan FAR

I'm starting to wind down at George F. Kennan. I still need to add a legacy section and restructure the "Academic career and later life" section, but besides that, I think the work is nearly complete. Do you have any suggestions for improving this article and do you think it is near FA quality? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, could you explain a bit further why their opinions are unnecessary? I read the talk page, but I feel that your criteria eliminates the views of a number of eminent Kennan biographers. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Do you have any ideas on how I should go about finding consensus opinions of Kennan? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Miscamble, I found this to be a good review of his scholarly assessment of Kennan's work. However, the author of the review frames Miscamble's arguments in the context of the two divergent schools of thought – Gaddis, Hogan and Leffler on one side and Hixson and Stephanson on the other. He argues that Miscamble took the middle ground, arguing for and against some parts of each side. Would you still consider it inappropriate to refer to the views of Gaddis, Hixson, etc. and then present Miscamble (and maybe Mayers and Isaacson), or do you think the Gaddis et al. issue would remain as an WP:UNDUE problem? Thanks for all the help, by the way. I've taken a foreign policy class before, but it was a second semester course, so it started off with Kissinger and progressed through to Shultz. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of place of birth info from text

Thanks for your helpful comments. It may interest you that some more discussion of the issue is now taking place at [12], where a fourth editor has now chimed in with our shared view.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kings of [Various other places]

I was very pleased to see your very appropriate edit here. Thought I was the only one who cared about the problem. This looks to be an ongoing and perhaps never-ending struggle. Three kings of Sweden for example are often called King Eric of Pomerania (recently changed back from Eric VII of Denmark), King Albrekt of Mecklenburg (OK for the moment as Albert of Sweden) and King Christopher of Bavaria (the article you edited now). One Swedish queen, just an example of many, could correctly be called Queen Hedvig Elisabet Charlotta of Holstein-Gottorp of Sweden and Norway by these enthusiasts. People who want them under such headings seem to be willing to argue for them ceaselessly. I have tried civilly to talk some sense into them (sense as I see it), but have never succeeded. What to do? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

apologies

I think I owe you an apology, or you under another guise, Septentrionalis. It's there at the Talk:Cicero page, but here it is again. I did not mean to direct my remark about the Rome TV series at you personally, but I completely see that it must've seemed so. I was being a smart aleck, and I don't like that kind of ad hominem undermining. I saw the character of Octavian in one scene among the little I viewed of Rome, and I must say that scene was very convincing, so things were firing in my brain that didn't add up on the page. Shutting up now. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said!

[13] Bishonen | talk 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

WP:Naming conflict

It would help if you could spare some time to contribute at WP:Naming conflict.

In short this version contained the following. in the section "self-identifying entities:

"Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name"

This is claimed on the talk page to take precedence over the principle of choosing the most common name, in order to reduce disputes.

I edited the article to quote directly from WP:NAME and WP:UE, to indicate that common names still take precedence for the title, and all alternatives are to be explained in text. This was removed.

You are aware of the bigger picture of the naming conventions and their development - if you could correct any inaccuracies in the talk-page statements or guideline text it would be appreciated.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, I have commented further there. I still believe that the original wording in that section from 2005 was written to refer specifically to article text, but its slight ambiguity has now lead to a increasingly widespread interpretation that it refers to the title - at least that's the impression I get from these comments. At the very least, the ambiguity should be resolved.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Xandar's comments at Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_31#ALL_Catholic_is_NOT_Roman_Catholic and here, in the run up to the rather controversial renaming of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. Knepflerle (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Flurry of edits at WP:MOSNUM

While not wishing to characterise it as an edit war, I am concerned at the number of relatively minor edits that are occurring at WP:MOSNUM. I notice you put one in and I don't include you in that (it was a partial revert I think). It seems to me patent that the issue has not achieved consensus and changes should not have started to be made before that consensus was reached, and I have said so on the MOSNUM talk page. I didn't want you to think I was including you in this for your one helpful edit; the others may individually be helpful but MOSNUM should not be a moving target. I would be glad of your help on the talk pages if it does come back there. These are good faith editors (though Noetica seems to have jumped the gun a bit in my opinion) but how are editors supposed to rely on MOSNUM if it changes under their feet? Of course it cannot be written in sstone, but there are actual changes of meaning here, not just minor rewording to make advice clearer.

Thanks. SimonTrew (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at my user page. I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly. While I myself have fairly strong views on English (and being an Englishman having lived in the US with a Canadian and currently going out with a Hungarian I perhaps have slightly more knowledge of English varieties than some others) they are, to me, inappropriate for MOSNUM which, er, is about NUMBERS. Of course it is important to write the advice clearly, but it is not the place to introduce, by the back door, things that belong in MOS proper. It is simply impossible to meet MOS guidelines if they constantly change in substance: if it is a rewording for clarity, fine, if it is agreed that the rewording does make things clearer (yours, for example, I also thought as you did unnecessary, but it did not make anything worse and did not change meaning, just made explicit what was implied).

In a way it does not matter for most of us like myself who, while trying to obey the spirit of the MOS, actually try to get on and edit articles. I don't create much new content but am always gnoming around adding references, doing translations, conversions, etc, and the whole point of all that is to improve the substance of the article: while I will try to conform to MOS, if it is in constant flux I give up and take WP:COMMON, in this case saying ignore MOS it will change next week anyway. It should be entirely apparent – indeed is apparent –; to those who quote style guides that they differ. I think I will go start SimonTrewipedia, wanna join? :) SimonTrew (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, MOS either means something or it means nothing. I am not sure which.

I don't expect MOS to be writ in stone, but it is simply practically unhelpful if it is changing under one's feet. Like it or not, an article does not get GA or FA unless it complies with MOS, and that is pretty much impossible both because MOS keeps changing and because it is interpreted differently by different people. While MOS should be able change, the wording itself should be rigorous and unambiguous. This is expected of articles so should be expected of the MOS itself, and frequently seems not to be. So, getting GA or FA is largely down to the whim of who does the review. I already have a couple of articles stacked for GA (not my creation but ones I have heavily gnomed) which from experience will probably fail MOS. A wise GA takes WP:BOLD and fixes it, as is recommended, some GA reviewers seem to be there because they like to mark things as FAIL.

The difficulty that all the MOS stuff is trying to address, really, is cross-article consistency. Since this is pretty much expressly denied as necessary, it will get nowhere. Either you want cross-article consistency or you don't, it's as simple as that. If you do, you have to enforce it (with the usual provisos that WP is not finished, WP is not perfect etc i.e. don't delete the bloody article just cos it doesn't conform, but improve it). If you don't, MOS is irrelevant, since obviously you can have your own MOS for each article. Simple as that. SimonTrew (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Your recent edit adding "Pearl River (China)" as an example, struck me as a little off. The discussion that is being exemplified there is the addition of the work "river" to disambiguate a river which is commonly known just by its name, such as the Ob. "Pearl River (China)" is not disambiguated in that way. Am I missing something? --Bejnar (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Vistula River may be another, more commonly known. That is commonly called just the Vistula, but the article is under Vistula River. --Bejnar (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the Bug river. Good choice! You are correct, Vistula River is primary for Vistula, as is the Oder River for the Oder. (The following is humor.) What about Western Bug versus Western conifer seed bug? See a "just hatched baby leaf footed western bug" at image. (smile) --Bejnar (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Prepositions

When it comes to ending sentences with prepositions, such violations need to be stepped on!!

Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Catholic Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. anietor (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have filed a Request for Arbitration Enforcement about you, here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Big, near-infinity, and infinity

Have you considered archiving some of your talk page? Man-oh-man does your talk page load slowly (and I’ve got 8 megabaud broadband). The only page I can recall that loaded this slowly, was an Internet page showing some gazzilion digits of pi; though pi goes on forever, they wisely ended the progression on that page at some point, just like this page does. ;-) Greg L (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried loading it on my mobile phone and the phone's memory couldn't take it and it shut off entirely! I'd highly recommend archiving some of the older comments as well. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning - August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --^StormRider 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you must misrepresent my opinions ...

... please do so in public forums. This comment at a user's talkpage required my rebuttal, and the user resents both you and me usurping his space. I don't blame him.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:14, 21 August 2009 (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, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. anietor (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RCC or CC

You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict

You might want to take a break and let others talk. When you reply, your opposition replies, and soon there is too much to read. This is good for people trying to keep things the way they are, since it discourages input, but bad for those trying to get incorrect wording removed.    M   00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Please do not revert, especially without any explanation, given that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Given the history of this guideline, we should all be striving to avoid a heated debate. If there was actual consensus to include the statement, then I am happy with its inclusion in the guideline - my concern is process, not substance. If youcan assist with the discussion, that would be helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't clue in until a moment ago that you and Septentrionalis are one and the same. You obviously did participate in the talk page discussion, and you kindly apologized for the rollback comment. My comments, therefore, make no sense, and I am sorry for that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether you believe something is a statement of fact or not is beside the point -- you need consensus to add it to the guideline. Please don't engage in silly reversion games. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't make silly vandalism accusations. You can disagree with someone and that doesn't make it vandalism. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You actually made a very good point on this one (you were right on this one, I was wrong), but unfounded accusations of vandalism never help one's case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheeky. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Result of WP:AE report

As a result of the AE discussion and a review of your recent contributions, I am re-widening your year-long ban to include a restriction from editing any pages or talk pages in the MOS or any related style guidelines. A record of this change has been logged here. Shell ^babelfish 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pm, I see you are still editing Wikipedia talk: naming conflict. Is that not considered a style guideline that would fall under the above restriction? --anietor (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the MoS and related pages are a very specific subset.    M   23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's not a style guideline. If anything its a subsection of dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept that. I wasn't sure, and preferred to bring it up here as opposed to on that public talk page. Feel free to delete my inquiry/post. --anietor (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar

I'm not sure how productive responding to him directly is going to be. Every time someone responds, he seems to take this as an opportunity to pound on and on about what he's been saying, without change, since the start. Since there's little danger of people actually agreeing with his huge blocks of often incoherent text, I'm going to substantially limit my responses to him. There are times when someone doesn't understand, and there are times when they have no hope of understanding until they calm down and decide to work with others. This is the latter.    M   23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

your expertise?

I thought you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Economic_history_of_China_.28pre-1911.29this nomination (but I'm second-guessing your areas of interest/expertise in this respect). Tony (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

PMA

I always cringe when people call you "PMA", because it is one of the numerous prior usernames of one of our lesser-known veterans, who started with us in 2001 and is still here. I wonder if there is such a thing as a user disambiguation page. Hesperian 04:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oracle bones

Hi PMAnderson, and thanks for your suggestions concerning oracle bones on Economic history of China (pre-1911). I finally opted for "contemporaneous inscriptions," with a hidden link to oracle bones. I don't know why but "epigraphy" in Chinese contexts usually refers to inscriptions found on bronze vessels, and I had already used "epigraphic evidence" in the next section, on the Western Zhou. Do let me know if you think the passage is still unclear.

I wish the FA nomination had lasted longer. I always felt bad for not having contributed more to that wiki, and the FA process forced me to offer concrete suggestions for improving it. But we were only getting started! This article can probably be featured in the future, but it will require a lot of reading and rewriting to correct its content problems. Peacocks and weasels are conspicuous, but relatively easy beasts to handle. It's much harder to find good balance and respect NPOV in articles that survey thousands of years of Chinese history. A successful example is List of Chinese inventions.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Title Namimg

I noticed you mentioned the naming of Mitrovica on the talk page, could you please give your opinion at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica#Mitrovica? Regards IJA (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Please see the enforcement request. Tony (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD format

You may be interested to know that the question of expanding the use of the YYYY-MM-DD format has arisen once again, at [14]--VMAsNYC (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

World War II evacuation and expulsion merger

I understand you are opposed to the usage of the term "population transfers". I am however wondering what your sentiment is regarding the employment of a standardized format (possible one of the 3 proposed) if another term, or variety of terms, were used? If you believe there is value in a standardize format I would encourage you to change your survey vote to indicate that you are opposed to the term "population transfers" but support a standardized format in principle. Your continued participation is much appreciated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#RfC:_In_WP:Naming_Conventions.2C_should_the_specific_exceptions_to_.22Use_Common_Name.22_be_removed.3F ~ R.T.G 18:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"failure to understand English syntax or bad faith"

Please don't. It's very hard to continue replying to this type of argument and still maintain one's self respect. I have repeatedly told you that an argument you make about syntax, that is entirely based on your arbitrary application of special criteria, and syntax itself are different issues. You chose to avoid that and now are simply shouting over my arguments. I'll do you the service of not assuming it's because you don't understand what I'm telling you or are displaying bad faith, which, per the diff, is more than you will do for me. Have a good one, Dahn (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the alternative: the distinction between the notion with capitals and the notion without capitals is entirely your creation, and whether or not it's what you call "a name" is irrelevant. All the cases Biruitorul presented you with and the analogies I presented you with consistently prove that the two respective notions are interchangeable within the same context. There is no factual distinction between "fascist Italy" and "Fascist Italy", there is no factual distinction between "Communist Romania" and "communist Romania", as far as the sources cited go. Presuming you have actually glanced at the sources you discuss (though apparently you haven't), the only possible implications are that you are somehow able to distinguish the sources better than I or Biruitorul can, and have the esoteric insight into what the authors mean to say without saying.

And, quite frankly, I was holding you in better esteem than to imagine you would resort to trolling. Dahn (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that that is a third possibility: the bad faith to claim that English does not have a semantic category of names, marked by capitalization, combined with the expectation that such a claim would, for a moment, convince a native speaker - for that, ignorance may be an adequate explanation.

Please stay off my talk page, unless you are prepared to retract; there is no reason I should have to interrupt my hobby to deal with figments of such audacity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

==Carinthia (province) Hi, Septentrionalis! I see you have been involved in the previous discussion about renaming the article Carinthia (province). I've opened a new discussion about the renaming of the article to 'Slovenian Carinthia' (see its talk page) and moving the material about the statistical region to a separate article (like it has been done for other Slovenian statistical regions; see {{Statistical regions of Slovenia}}). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel

possibly foolishly, I have re-opened the C-or-K naming dispute at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel#Proposed move (3). Whilst I disagree with your arguments in the previous disputes, I imagine you would want to express your opinions there ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for wandering over to the debate. You didn't prefix your comment with "Oppose", though (which I assume you do). Just for the sake of clarity, could I ask you just to go prefix your comment? Thanks, dude! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

stuff

Yesterday GTBacchus gave me a rather strongly worded formal warning over ad hominem remarks, for comments not worse than your Is this a deliberate strategy intended to derail discussion. I get the impression that he is getting very close to escalating to blocking. As he already warned you once, I submit that you should consider refactoring, so as to deprive him of any reason to do so. I say this without making any comment on the validity of what you've said. Hesperian 03:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a good thing

Whatever Catman (or whatever his name is) did was not right, but it was stable thereafter, and there is no reason to change it now. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially since the article has changed completely in the meanwhile, and has been stable since then. As WP:ERA says, "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." There is nothing to be gained from toggling between eras, so please just leave well enough alone. As you rightly say "Always revert a Date Warrior", and Flamarande is date warring, (and the way he/she is going will no doubt eventually get whacked for it). But the reason why we always revert a date warriror is because era warring is warring, and that is not in the best interests of the article or the 'pedia. So please don't follow Flamarande's era warring footsteps. They aren't good. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, please don't revert Fullstop changes. That's exactly what these sort of guys want. The proper way to do this (to restore the original dating system in case of a unilateral change) is through the proper channels (when the talkpage doesn't solve the issue).

I took a look at the history of this article (I was looking why and who moved it towards "Arsacid Empire") and found that the first one to change the original BC/AD towards BCE/CE was (surprise, surprise) none other than the venerable Fullstop [15]. As far as I can judge this matter the article original system was BC/AD and for most of the time it used it without any problem. Let's move this article towards 'Parthian Empire' first, and then ask an administrator's opinion. Let's us see who will get whacked for it. Flamarande (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC) PS: not wanting to hide anything I suggest you take a careful look at my talkpage. My opinion and reasons upon this matter are there.

3RR at WP:NCCN

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

PMA, please stop your disruptive editing pattern at WP:NCCN, which is literally "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" (which is a no-no, see WP:POINT). --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of Harbor Island, San Diego

I've boldy closed this request and moved the discussion here as this affects so many articles. Hopefully you'll agree with this close. You may wish to comment in the new discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"... but Wikipedia is not an exercise in language reform."

Since you seem to care about this, perhaps you could help us hammer a consensus at WT:MOS#Amongst. Pcap ping 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

From the talk above it looks like you're banned from even participating in MOS discussion. Sorry to have bothered you. Pcap ping 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

21st century usage

"tends to over-represent ... twenty-first century usage. " Interesting comment. I must say I see WP as a dynamic resource, and to the extent that it reflects common usage, it is current usage, including preferring 21st century usage to 20th or 19th century usage when there is a conflict. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, you contributed to this discussion a while ago. An RfC is now open for your comments on this issue at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Imperial cult (ancient Rome)

You're a star. I've sweated pints over the problems in that introduction. Excellent fixes. Haploidavey (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

wolf's jaws

Are there even five other people in the world who would've got that ref and been able to make a joke about it? If I get my novel published I'll beg you to read it; there's even a little joke about Tiu's day in it. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What does this remind you of?

What does this remind you of?

"To art, that is best which is most beautiful; to science, that is best which is most accurate; to morality, that is best which is most virtuous. Change or quibble upon the simple and generally accepted significance of these three words, "beautiful," "accurate," "virtuous" and you may easily (if you please, or think it worth while) demonstrate that the aim of all three is radically one and the same; but if any man be correct in thinking this exercise of the mind worth the expenditure of his time, that time must indeed be worth very little."

— Algernon Charles Swinburne (1868), William Blake: A Critical Essay.

Hesperian 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

unwarranted tag by solitary and disruptive POV-artist.

Referring to a fellow editor as a "disruptive POV-artist." is arguably a personal attack. I'm just saying... (by the way, it wasn't me that inserted that tag, in case that's what you thought). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "cause" I have is for written policy to reflect actual usage. That is, for written policy to reflect the opinions of others. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the disputes of the past year have turned Born2cycle from a prescriptivist to a descriptivist. That, at least, is a fine outcome. Hesperian 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're a bigger expert on what my cause is than I am? You're too much. I assure you, you misinterpret my cause. Nothing will shut me down faster than showing me my argument is opposed by consensus because all I'm ever ultimately trying to do is consistently defend consensus. Sometimes reasonable people may disagree on what consensus is, but that's different. For example, my point about predabbing U.S. city names always rested on the original renaming by bot being made without consensus. Consensus to predab all U.S. city articles could never be established because it was never there. On flora, my opinion is that we can't get the attention of enough non-flora editors to find out what consensus really is - every time the issue comes up we're overwhelmed by plant editors. But that doesn't mean the consensus is to support the current flora guidelines; it just means that that is the consensus of the flora editors, which I don't dispute. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I could provide diffs where you continued to propound a point of view long after it have been firmly rejected by the community; and in that case you actually acknowledged consensus against your position, but it didn't stop you continuing to propound it. But really, what is the point? If you believe what you have just written, then, yes, I am a bigger expert on what your cause is than you are. A factual account of the discussions of the last year would be impossible to reconcile with the above. Hesperian 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Hi there! Do you remember me? I finally wrote the first part of a political history of Mysore and it is now at FAC review. I should have thought of you earlier. Anyway, would you like to weigh in at the FAC review page. Look forward to your feedback! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: My RFA

.. While I am not trying to change your stand at my RFA, I have left an explaination if possible to clear your misunderstanding on my association with WikiProject Council. Please do take a look. Have a great day. -- Tinu Cherian - 19:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback

Never thought I'd come here to request feedback, but this might be up your street. Mass moves made by a new user. MoS-related. Thanks. Húsönd 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that a block for the moment won't be necessary, as the user has largely decreased his unwitting disruption. I already admonished him to stop making edits that would make it harder to clean this mess. If he continues, then by all means a block request at WP:ANI will be in order. If a block is needed, I agree that it's better to have another admin do it. Although I have no conflict of interest whatsoever and a block for persistent disruption would be perfectly justifiable, I know that the fact that I'm Portuguese would suffice to cause some drama at ANI. Please keep an eye to make sure that his unilateral edits cease. Thanks. Húsönd 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And now it's gone to ANI. Húsönd 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Formal system requested move

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the requested move discussion for Formal system. Would you be willing to give your opinion there on Pcap's split proposal? I have no knowledge of the subject matter, and would be hesitant to close the discussion without further input. Other administrators and experienced editors have refrained from closing it either, even though it is overdue by weeks; I would warrant for the same reason. -kotra (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Helvig of Holstein

You might be interested in this: Talk:Helvig of Holstein#Move to Hedwig of Holstein. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Augustus

I have made a response at Talk:Augustus, and edited the article to include Scott's (1933) description of Roman historians' input on the proscriptions. I have also removed several dubious sentences referenced to Eck. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I do not understand what Perusia or the Perusian War has to do with everyone who was proscribed, considering how there are many prominent people of the city of Rome and even family members of the triumvirs who were proscribed. Obviously Cicero was not a native of Perusia, yet he was proscribed. Please clear up this issue for me, for I am at a loss!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I get it. We are talking about two ENTIRELY different events. I am talking about what happened in the city of Rome and elsewhere in November 43 BC; you are talking about the result of a siege against Perusia that took place in March 40 BC. Both events happen to involve 300 senators, although in the former case we are talking about THE Roman Senate, and in the latter case, as you specify, the local senate of Perusia. I was focused on the former because I thought you were still talking only about the section involving the so-called "Roman revolution" which affected many patrician and equite families in Rome, and as far as I know, not Perusia. Look, I might be able to get a hold of a book by Syme, but I won't be able to check it out from the library at GMU (I am an alumni, not an enrolled student). This might take a very long time, including literally dozens of trips to the library that will eat up a lot of my free time. In fact, this might take up a few weeks time, perhaps even two months, if you think every single sentence provided by Eck needs to be checked by one or multiple sources. It would be very helpful, since you seem so certain that there are so many false statements in the article, if you could list, by number or bullet, every single particular sentence you have a problem with, and state clearly why you have a problem in every single instance. In this way, I could tackle each problem one by one, and it would save me a lot of time while researching. It's difficult to address something so vague as "the text makes several claims and implications here, most of them flat wrong, and inconsistent with the primary sources." Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is some good news in regards to accessing Syme's book. I have just found out that I don't actually have to physically go to the library every time I want to read Syme's book. GMU was gracious enough to put the entire thing online. Being an alumni, I can still access netlibrary.com.mutex.gmu.edu, which presents scans of a great proportion of the books located in Fenwick Library. Syme's book is one of them! A five-hundred-page book is quite a tome, however. This will still take a very long time. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. In my sudden and unusual spare time spurred by the fact that my Dell desktop computer has crapped out on me - for lack of a better term in regards to what I believe is now not a video card or driver failure but a motherboard failure (YIKES!) - I have so far read up to page 135 of Syme's Roman Revolution (i.e. beginning of "Senior Statesman" chapter) on a borrowed Mac laptop. Looking over the content of his book that I have read thus far, which coincides roughly with the content in Augustus up to the subsection entitled "First Conflict with Antony", I have yet to find these "claims and implications" of Eck's which you assert spoil the article and make it unhappy. However, I will take your word for it and continue, hopeful to locate these clear contradictions of truth which you are most certain exist in the article, but despite my nudging, have been shy to reveal. I'll tell you what I think after burning through another 100 pages of Syme's tome (which, smart comments aside, is truly a work of excellence. I'm amazed at how many personalities he seems to be intimately familiar with, but perhaps this is necessary considering his goal of presenting the case that behind the achievements of every charismatic "strongman" in history lies an army, a faction, a network of financiers, conniving agents, and as always, women working hard behind the scenes). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Google test

I'll be frank and right to the point: I'm hoping you'd change your vote with regard to the latest developments on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta (Google test and all :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pm? You there? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A response would've been nice... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Pmanderson, you voted "Opposed" on the move of the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta article on the grounds that the current name ("Tomislav"/"Tomislav II") is used more frequently in the English language. Not only is that argument faulty due to WP:NCROY regulation of royal/noble article titles, but also every single Google test (Google, Google Books, Google Scholar) that tried to verify your argument has conclusively shown that this person is almost always referred to as "Aimone". That's two seperate, major flaws. The third seperate flaw being that every single professional source (that is available to us) describing/mentioning this person's life always consistently refers to this person as "Aimone", outside the context of mentioning his nomination for kingship in early 1941.
As far as notability is concerned, that issue is plainly no longer disputable. I won't hide that I expect you shall change/withdraw your vote in accordance? (I can see that you're busy on serious articles, but surely a tiny edit like that is not something that would ruin your schedule?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is rude to the extreme. Very well, I shall not address you at all in the future, as it appears you consider it below your person to respond to perfectly friendly posts. Offensive behavior of this kind is not what I expected from an established editor such as yourself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Catholic Church. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack anietor (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your harassment of User:TrueColour and related Edit warring

I strongly ask you to stop harassing me. You should also stop Edit warring and respect WP:AGF. Evidence

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penafiel,_Portugal&diff=321281102&oldid=321089528
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anta,_Peru&diff=321281007&oldid=321226419

TrueColour (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool it!

I'm beginning to agree that TrueColour is out of line and disruptive, your point about BRD is correct. However, this is completely uncalled for. You are effectively telling TrueColor that he or she is not welcome to edit enwiki and to stay in the Portguese language wikis. That violates core principles and I suggest you retract or clarify immediately. Additionally, your edit summaries saying that you are "reverting move vandalism" are a serious misuse of the term "vandalism". I know that you are a very experienced editor, you must know that this does not come close to the definition of vandalism. TrueColour believes these are the best names, he may be wrong, he may be disruptive, he may get reverted, and if he doesn't pay attention to what he's being told, he may get blocked; but he is not a vandal. You need to step back and let Sarek or some other cooler heads work with TrueColour. There is no serious damage by what is being done and we aren't on a deadline and you know all of that. Please cool it!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this seriously. I agree that he isn't acknowledging either the language issue or the consensus issue and those are problems. I actually wasn't addressing his comment on my talk page when I posted above and didn't realize that he had posted there. If we all try and just bring this back down to talking about the problems it should work out.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "he is am out of line and disruptive"? I was WP:BOLD and disrupted the old state old state of the articles on geography of Portugal. Where is Pmanderson calling of WP:BRD correct? He should have applied it to Husond, since Husond was the one who starting moving articles /knowing/ the naming he choose was under dispute. I stopped moving municipality articles, beside /one/ single town, /immediately/ after Husond for the /first/ time asked on my page that I move it back. /immediately/!. And I discussed the matter, started a thread on a page suggested by Husond. But /they/ did not contribute to the naming discussing there. Until now Pmanderson did not make a single edit at WP:MOS-PT, Talk:Districts of Portugal, Talk:Municipalities of Portugal. @vandalism term misuses, see this talk page, it seems not to be the first time.

Doug, you say I agree that he isn't acknowledging either the language issue or the consensus issue - Doug, can you be more specific about the two issues, I would like to address them. Pmanderson seemed very well able to interpret /at my talk page/ "Where not?" as "Where didn't I?" Do you also think that "Something, Portugal (municipality)" is /idiomatic/ , whatever that exactly means? And where is Mr Prof PhD habil Superman High Modern Standard English on the municipality articles fixing things like "Vale de Cambra is a city in the Vila Cha parish with about 4,100 inhabitants in the city." Are you both really thinking that because I /maybe/ sometimes use /some/ words wrongly, or do not style phrases very well, I cannot talk about /article titles/? That is a personal attack. I ever was and maybe ever will be happy to see my wordings in texts improved by native speakers. Thank you. TrueColour (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

note moved to new section

Pm, I have created a new section for discussion of the vote and placed your very long argument there. The voting area is just for voting. Discussion now has its own section. I am alerting you so you can place your vote in the voting area, I did not want to touch your edit by moving it myself. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Magister Equitums

Lest I go off the deep end on this, are you aware that there is a category called "Roman Magister Equitums"? Am I just being my usual overly vehement self, or is this utterly wrong? I started to change it to "Roman Magistri Equitum", but thought I should seek counsel first. I can't quite persuade myself that this is the equivalent of "mother-in-laws" instead of "mothers-in-law" and thus not the end of the world, since we regularly say "My in-laws are coming for a visit." Your view? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree on the redundancy of "Roman". I think. There are other "Masters of the Horse," but I guess not with the Latin title? Shall I go ahead and change the category to "Magistri Equitum," then? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I lost you. I'm behind anything that gets rid of the illiterate 'equitums'; I'd be fine with a single category called "Masters of the Horse," for the fun, as you said, of collocating men who held the title at different times and places, and because that's what the main page is called. I've only created one category my whole time on Wikipedia, and I don't find overspecialized categories as informative to browse — I like to make discoveries of things I didn't already know. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a rush yesterday. I follow what you're saying, except for one thing: Why is Magistri equitum reserved for Constantine's cavalry generals only? Why doesn't it also include those who held the title magister equitum under the dictatores of the Early Republic, or Lucius Flaccus under Sulla and Marc Antony under Caesar? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Something wacky just happened to my talk page. I'll have to revert and will lose your last comment. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for being dense on technical matters (I'm just a content shoveler). I was about to make the simplest change (to "Masters of the Horse"), but then I realized I don't know how to rename a category page, since there's no move button. I could create a new category page, and edit each article to remove the old and add the new category, but wouldn't that still leave the Magister Equitums in existence? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Want to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 30? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I have failed so far to effect any change. I can't believe it's taking a week to change a grammatical error. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but could you weigh in one more time on this issue? Simply to state the one single name you would choose for renaming? I honestly don't care WTF it's called at this point, as long as we get rid of equitums. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They've now refused to correct the error. The discussion is closed. The category remains "Magister Equitums". My mind reels. Thanks for trying to help correct it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I seconded your rename, with the Modest Proposal that we eat our Latin grammar books — I confined myself to correcting the error, period. Mercy bo-coop tibi. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope I didn't misunderstand what you wanted the category renamed to — I was trying to be absolutely minimalist. I'm not going to participate in the discussion further, because I feel obstructionism creeping back in and life is too short. If, however, you persist and at some point need a simple 'yeah, what he said' to help get it through, drop me a note. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [16] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Helvig of Holstein 2

There is a dispute regarding the credibility of Wikipedia:Verifiability in the Talk:Helvig of Holstein#Move to Hedwig of Holstein discussion and other arguments which may be of interest to you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Jews, Protestants, and Freemasons"

You wrote on the talk page of "Catholic Church":

Or, on the other hand, there are the true followers of some traditional Catholic views: that much of world history is the result of a conspiracy, founded by Caiaphas at the instigation of the devil, acting through the Jews, Protestants and Freemasons. Much of this article is not far from that position; but such statements can readily be sourced to scholars no worse, and no less Catholic, than Pagani.

I almost posted a response there, but decided I didn't want to start an off-topic flame war. Here's what I would have written:

Please! Jews, Protestants, Freemasons, and Communists--with the latter broadly defined as "anyone whose social or economic policies are to the left of me and my friends", including "pink popes" like John XXIII. Fascists, on the other hand, are a different Kessel der Fische. As one Opus Dei friend put it to me, "Fascism was rather attractive until the Nazis gave it a bad name." (Orlandis, Nancy's latest "source", is Opus Dei. Why am I not surprised?)

Thanks so much for your always astute and insightful comments! Harmakheru (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, here's an interesting little book:

Under the Heel of Mary [17]

It even has a chapter entitled "Jews, Protestants, and Masons: Enemies of Our Lady". A pity it's out of print and only available on Amazon for nearly $100. But the Google Books previews are fascinating. Harmakheru (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found a copy of this on the shelves of the local university research library. I've just been browsing at random, preparatory for a full-scale read from cover to cover. If even a tenth of this stuff is reliable (and a lot of it seems to be) ... well, I'm not sure what to say. The mind boggles (or at least my mind does). Harmakheru (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

tagging

Did you mean to remove the general tags at the top of Catholic Church [18]? I don't know if you saw my revert of Rocksandstones; from your edit summary it appeared that you might want the tags to be there. Karanacs (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

We are discussing the changes here [19]. You are welcome to help come to a consensus but please do not revert what is being discussed before coming to consensus, Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church article vandalism

Not sure what happened, but half the Catholic Church article is missing and currently you were the last editor on it. I cant get earlier versions to open or I would try to correct it myself. Thanks for your hard work on this article.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Catholic Church, you will be blocked from editing. anietor (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have opened a user RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise. From my analysis of the diffs, I think you are eligible to certify this, although you are, of course, under no obligation to do so. If you choose to certify, please check to make sure that I have not missed any key diffs in your attempts to resolve the dispute. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Districts of Portugal

I would like to have your input at Talk:Districts of Portugal#RfC. And I am happy to improve my English language skills by reading your contributions. TrueColour (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Pmanderson ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)

You recently commented in the discussion concerning consensus on this page. You may be interested to know that the conversation appears to still be ongoing and another used has removed the section, in it's entirety, from the page. Dpmuk (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv Again

Pmanderson, I've posted the following at Future Perfect's Talk page and requested his advise. Since you have also contributed to the discussion on renaming there, I wanted to draw your attention to the issue as well.

Future, there is a potential problem brewing at Kiev. There is a fairly steady, but low-speed, stream of attempts by Ukrainian nationals to change the name of this article to Kyiv, which is the official Ukrainian transliteration, but not yet common English usage. A new patriot has shown up with this post. It is a cut and paste from this, which includes a call-to-arms to "fix" Wikipedia. I don't know who is soliciting the masses, but it doesn't look appropriate. Please advise. Thanks.

I just noticed that "Marko" is identical with "Markiyan" at this forum where he actually calls for action. This is blatant meat puppetry.

In investigating, I noted this as an example of the wholesale change in spelling that is happening in many places. While I don't personally oppose the spelling of "Kyiv", it is not the most common spelling in English at this time. It is another case of a nationalist agenda that is trying to steamroll through Wikipedia without respect to consensus or process.

If you have any advise or comments to add to whatever Future might say, I would appreciate them. As I said to Future, I don't oppose "Kyiv" per se. I lived in Ukraine for a year and have a Ukrainian wife, so I understand their sentiments, but it's not based on consensus-building and common English usage. Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

For your kind words. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Septentrionalis"

"Northern"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slobbovia

An editor has nominated Slobbovia, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slobbovia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.Robofish (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Formal system

You tagged up Formal system. At some point you are going to have to actually point to some statement in the article which you claim is disputed or POV. Otherwise there is no way to either fix, or remove the tag. Please be advised that there is a difference between "subject matter" of some academic subject and "POV." You will need to point to some POV which is being held in the article. Hopefully it will be productive. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Semi-protect all pages!"

"Semi-protect all pages!" That's what I used to think, anyway. But then I read your user page, and you put it in perspective for me. So thanks. Hurray that WP is so freaking easy to use that drunk frat boys can vandalize it.

Anyway, if you're the sort of editor who likes to put hard facts into controversial articles, would you be interested in reading Encyclopedia Online? I've found a lot of good material there for use on religiously sensitive articles. Leadwind (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, here's a useful "pope" article (link). I'm not sure how this all works for you. I have premium access to EBO, but I think that anyone can follow the links to the articles. Let me know. If there are articles you'd like to see, I can provide links for you. Leadwind (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Seneca

Am I writing in Etruscan or something? Did I not present objective data? To which no one offered counter-arguments? Frankly, my first thought was that you were probably wrong to want to move it — until I actually looked at statistical evidence. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

• Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

• News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

• In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

• Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Greeks

Since you have shown interest in the past I would appreciate your input on rewritting this article. I would like to start with the History section. Any ideas? Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

• Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

• News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

• In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added Dorothy Day to O'Dea page at your request.

odea (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem

You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter. Rick Block (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Ultramontanes by any other name ...

That would be all very well, if there were another term for the POV in question ...

Several possibilities come to mind.

"Traditionalists" might be appropriate if the term had not already been appropriated by a somewhat different flavor of ultra-conservatism.

"Ecclesiolaters" would be hitting the nail pretty squarely on the head, but would no doubt be vehemently objected to and considered "uncivil" and "uncollegial" by those to whom it might be correctly applied.

How about "indefectibilists"? They can hardly object to this one, since the indefectibility of the Church is official Catholic POV (see [20] and [21]) to which these self-proclaimed defenders of the faith presumably subscribe; and it comes pretty close to describing the attitude they consistently bring to the discussion. Harmakheru ✍ 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Move of New York Board of Trade

But the New York Board of Trade doesn't even exist anymore but NYBOT does? Southwood Paul (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

United States Geographical MOS

A while back ago, you were involved in a discussion about how to refer to the United States Geographical locations on wikipedia. A similar discussion is taking place here. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No hurries

Just a friendly reminder that we're in no hurry on Catholic Church; if we're too bold on the article it may actually take longer to get anything changed because there is the inevitable "OMG! The article is different! Vandalism, I say!" series of arguments that overshadows the content questions a bit. Especially as we approach the holidays, people may not be online as much (and I don't think we're all on the same editing schedule), so it may be best to wait and allow other editors to provide feedback. I am just as frustrated with this process/hoop jumping as you are, but it's best to remember that if there ends up being an Arbcom case, all of our behavior will be scrutinized. Is is not A Good Thing to descend to a similar level of behavior as that we've been decrying (thanks to Bishonen, this word is now stuck in my head). Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC) PS I think I've referred to you as PMAnderson on the talk page. If that bothers you, I'll try to figure out how to spell your alias. Let me know. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you and Xandar 48 hours for edit warring on the Catholic Church article dispite warnings, page protection, etc. As an experienced editor you should know better than that. Secret ^account 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) {{Unblock|I was careful to stay inside 3RR - and, to be fair, so was Xandar. More importantly, having made my point that he will do anything to defend the text he owns, I have no interest or motive in continuing - and will not; if there is further disruption, I will ask for page protection. In short, I didn't mean to go too far, and I'm sorry I did.}}

{{unblock-auto|Secret appears to have unblocked me, but to have left an auto-block on this system - a major library.}}

• You need to carefully follow the directions at WP:AUTOBLOCK in order for an admin to be able to clear the block, currently there is not enough information here to clear it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

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. Thank you. warrior4321 00:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Warrior4321 is a Persian editor who pushed POV on ancient Persia articles. He gave me a warning like this too, for a personal attack that I didn't make. If you check my talk page he linked to an article where a banned IP sock-puppet was insulting me and others (before getting banned again). The sock-puppet was also pro-Persian POV pusher. I think we should report Warrior4321 for his erratic behaviour to the "wikipedia good articles group" he's a part of. Either he got hacked or he's mad. Simanos (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

MOScruft

Re MOScruft: Actually, I find that I agree with you!
However, I'm not sure what you mean by "It would be better to find out their relationship and disambiguate by that."
Do you mean their genealogical [sp?] relationship? Why would that be better?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. Note that John Raymond Broadbent (1893–1972) has already been endashed.)

I meant their genealogical relationship; because there is some chance that the reader will be able to remember that, and his chance of remembering the exact birth and deathdates is negligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"and his chance of remembering the exact birth and deathdates is negligible." - Agreed! Pdfpdf (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Other means of disambiguation (Service, war fought in, final rank) might be even better, but I don't see any that really work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I expect that's why (xxxx-yyyy) was chosen.

I personally like final rank, but it seems I'm in a minority there - whenever I try to use it I end up becoming involved in tediously long "discussions". Pdfpdf (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006)#Another proposal. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting move of Muslim conquest of Persia

I've just closed the requested move of Muslim conquest of Syria, a discussion you participated in. As part of the discussion, you advocated undoing the move of Muslim conquest of Persia to Rashidun conquest of Persia. That move was done by a requested move with (thin) consensus – see the "Archive 3" page of the talk page. If you want to advocate the undoing of the move, you should probably file another requested move to attempt to solidify consensus against that name. You may also be able to use the discussion on the Syria RM as an indicator that "Rashidun" is against consensus in those page titles. — æk^Talk 06:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From the page of Euthydemus I

Where, exactly, does Polybius give any date for Euthydemus' accession? As far as I can tell, his only mentions of Euthydemus are 11.34 (or .39) which we link to, and 10.49 which is linked to there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good question. It is believed that Polybius mistakenly mentioned Diodotus I instead of Euthydemus I, when he wrote about how the former king came to power "when the kings of Syria and Media where fighting one another". That fight is apparently a reference to the rebellion of Molon against Antiochus III in 222-221 BCE. The discussion is found in Lerner's "The impact of Seleucid decline on the eastern Iranian plateau". Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it gives a very exact date (we now know that Antiochus III became king in 222 BCE, and that Molon rebelled more or less instantly). Molon is the only person who could be called "king of Media" during the third century BCE. But, as Lerner states, we cannot really trust Polybius when he gets the names wrong. Sponsianus (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA notice

Because you are one of the handful of editors with whom I have had by far the most direct and regular interaction over the years, especially at WP:MOS and related pages, in agreement and sometimes in vehement disagreement, I am notifying you that WP:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 is going live today. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Orion

"Orion (mythology)" is not ambiguous with any of the other entries on Orion, and my "bot" (actually, it's just "assisted editing", more like a helper script) is exclusion compliant (the page in question just didn't exclude it). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, what page exactly do you claim it is ambiguous with? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, (A) only edited the article once using CobraBot (B) Constellations and mythology and sufficiently different to be different domains. It is apparent which article is which. Orion is a disambiguation page and lists both. There's also a link to the constellation article in the very first sentence in the article if someone should have gotten there by mistake. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid an edit war

Please avoid a revert cycle on Catholic Church. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am really not interested in a useless edit war, however I do think that the length flag there was a proxy flag for other issues. I do understand the frustrations some people may feel in the face of "opposition by numbers" but the length flag as a substitutionary remedy is not a cure therein. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

3 revert warning

Hello and welcome to the 3 revert zone. Please refrain from performing edits on Catholic Church that go against the 3 revert rule. That will just result in a block. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I'm impressed by your contributions to Talk:Catholic Church. I think you've demonstrated patience and restraint in your comments, as well as a genuine concern for accuracy. Well done! Slac speak up! 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Slac speak up! 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tuple

You did some improvement on info about the words quadruple and quintuple, but it still isn't perfect. First, what you wrote at Talk:Tuple is surprising as indicated by a comment I just posted. Second, at Number prefix you totally removed, rather than improving/fixing, what it says about quintuple. Georgia guy (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Character (arts)#Half revert

Hey, Pmanderson. You may want to weigh in on the above linked topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Source

Please discuss your reverts on File_talk:Catholicpopulationsnew.png#Source_and_accuracy Please avoid an edit war here. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not responded to my questions regarding this image. If you do not respond on the talk page for the image I will assume you have accepted my arguments. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A complaint against you is on WP:ANI. "Lie" when used in the context of "lie down" is usually without controversy. "Lie" as in not telling the truth can be interpreted as a strong accusation. This should be kept in mind when editing. As always, everyone should follow policy. There is a civility policy in Wikipedia. The ANI complaint sought others to counsel you. I am not doing that, just informing you of the ANI complaint, which is customary. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The matter with this terribly unsourced map has been brought up at my talk page, User talk:Ucucha#Admin behavior, by History2007. I noted some more substantive possible problems with the map that you may want to comment on. Ucucha 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions for the monarchs

Wowsers, things are become shaky. People wanting Victoria of the United Kingdom & Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom moved to Victoria & Elizabeth II. People wanting Robert I of Scotland & Mary I of Scotland moved to Robert the Bruce & Mary, Queen of Scots. What's next? Richard I of England to Richard the Lionhearted or Henry VII of England to Henry Tudor? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer consistancy across all the monarchial article titles. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement on the Catholic Church arbitration request

Hello Pmanderson. Your statement at the Catholic Church arbitration request is over 700 words. The word limit is 500 (that's for your statement and all responses) - please could you refactor your statement as soon as possible to bring it under the word limit? You are more than welcome to create a longer statement in your userspace and link to it on the main request page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Without sounding rude, I asked you yesterday to cut your section back as it was over 700 words. You've failed to do this and it's now at over 800 words. Please do something about it ASAP or I'll have to refactor it. Everyone else who I've asked to do it has complied without question. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm not feeling very well today and I'm not in the right frame of mind to decide what should and shouldn't be included (basically, I haven't got the energy to think about it) so if you could get it sorted within 24 hours (22:00 UTC tomorrow) that would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your reply - Leave it with me till the morning and I'll try and come up with something - as I explained before, I'm not feeling too good tonight. Apologies if I came across as rude. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Danish regnal names

I hope the remuors about Queen Margaret II's pending abdication isn't true (The Palace has said so). There'd likely be a 'page move' dispute over Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark being at either Frederik X of Denmark or Frederick X of Denmark. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I've informed those members was because I saw on a user's page of the same kind notification for a previous move request. You link also suggest that I have the right to inform members to improve the discussion. Most people who oppose the move request in the past already participated in the recent one but the same cannot be for those who supported. My attempt was to simply improve the discussion at hand. There is not violation of Wiki rules here rather than your attempt to keep your side strong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Important message

Hi PManderson! I left an important message for you at the Solon Talk Page. I think that's the best place to address the issue rather than here. Let me know what you think. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky template

Hi Pmanderson/Archive 9! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. Your work on the template is valuable, even though it is stil possible that consensus might not be reached in favour of its use. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to create a special workshop page for the development of the template at WT:BLP PROD TPL. It is designed keep the quite different major aspects of the BLP issue separate off the policy discussion and talk page, and help to move this whole debate towards a decision some kind or another. The page is well linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to it, the policy comments have been kept intact on the main talk page, and the main contributors to all sides of the the discussion are being informed. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on Wordsmith's talk page:

Septentrionalis/User:Pmanderson you are a vocal yet powerless editor, who came late to this RFC, whose views are against the wishes of the majority of the arbitration committee, Jimmy Wales, and several veteran editors/administrators. In other words, you ideas will be ignored, and your pleas will fall on deaf ears. Soon you will be threatened by these editors who oppose you, with real or fabricated violations of rules, and if you don't have the connections which all veteran editors have fostered, you will be blocked and permanently silenced.

I disagree with Wordsmith, but if he didn't revert the closing conclusion, another administrator would have, and that would have resulted in Wordsmith either starting a wheel war and risking his admininship. Smart, long term administrators are pragmatic administrators, they know when to reverse their original positions.

I don't want to discourage you, I simply want you to realize how important relationships are on wikipedia. If you are the lone voice against change, you will be trampled over.

Canvassing rules allow you to contact any editor in the BLP RFC, regardless of their position on issues, the only rule which may hinder this is "Mass posting". The "Nonpartisan" rule is widely ignored if someone has already commented in a discussion.

Granted, editors will unjustifiably cry foul, in an attempt to silence you, and may even unjustifiably block you, as they have me. (I got an admin dysoped for such a block, but I have over a 180+ editors watching my page, many supportive of me, you probably don't).

you are at an extreme disadvantage, as arbitrators have said, veteran editors talk offline a lot. Whether intentional or unintentional, this puts newer editors at an extreme disadvantage, and gives loop-sided power to the status quo.

You know you are effectively arguing when editors attempt to silence you with bogus rule violations when no rule violations actually exist. (I could provide a long list from my own personal experience) Of course, you are not being effective and you DO have to worry when editors threaten you with real policy violations. That is when you retract and sincerely apologize. Okip 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Ah, but politics and reasoning is a better answer to politicking than politics alone. Let others network, and let me do what I can."

LOL. As someone who had two paradigm shifts, (one after serving a two year mission then becoming an atheist and the second when I left American Civil Religion) I can firmly attest that reasoning is always steamrolled by emotion and established, deeply held beliefs.

Wikipedia has blocked many new editors whose only crime was mere reason. I would hate to tell you, "I told you so", we will see.

Can you archive your comments please?

Okip 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Catholic Church

"until Xandar and Nancy are banned, as they deserve to be." You asked for arbitration and it was rejected. Pursue dispute resolution if you want, request page protection if you want, but please stop personalizing the discussions on the talk page. It's tedious and repetitive, because at this point everyone who cares, and many who don't, know exactly what you think of them. Continuing to harp on it undermines your own case. Beyond that and most importantly, it has become disruptive. Please do not again personalize the already difficult arguments on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My mess

Apologies for the mess I created in the talk page. Honest mistake.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am working under the assumption that the straw poll is over and the new version ("Standard Model") is the baseline version of the article. Anyone who goes back to the old monstrosity will be summarily reverted and reported for edit warring.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people will behave. It shouldn't be a problem.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well let's just see what happens. Maybe I'm being more optimistic than I should be.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you were right! Yorkshirian is already reverting.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod workshop

Hi, I'm not quite sure what you meant by this comment, and it's probably left a few other editors wondering:

I trust that nobody here is really advocating handing over sourcing decisions to munchkins in a rush to accumulate edit count; but it really begins to sound like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The bold type is mine, but the statement is yours. If you were to follow the threads in all the sections closely, you will see that quite the opposites is being advocated. I wonder if you could perhaps consider archiving at least some of the near 400 messages on your talk page?--Kudpung (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity

Hello, Septentrionalis.

You have some passing familiarity with me. You looked on Diocletianic Persecution when it was up for FAC and showed some displeasure with it. I was doing unseemly things with footnotes, citing primary sources I had not consulted. I fixed that for you. You are obviously a clever and learned man, though your firm opinions and clipped style do not always do you favors here. (I am glad your voice is always heard at Talk:Catholic Church. It's a shame the madness there has not yet come to an end.) I doubt we agree on matters of taste, but I value your voice.

I am working on an article titled Philip the Arab and Christianity. No doubt the title should offend your nose just a bit: the topic's unseemly, old. It intrigues me, though. I ask you to review it. The peer review is here. You'll no doubt temper the enthusiasms I've unconsciously presented in the text. I would be very happy to hear from you on this. Though, given that you do not know me very well, it would be no harm to me if you did not.

Best of luck, G.W. (Talk) 06:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

• News and notes: A Wikiversity controversy, Wikimedian-in-Residence, image donation, editing contest, WMF jobs

• In the news: Studies on collaboration and student usage, Main Page drives traffic to Time.com

• Dispatches: GA Sweeps end

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Ireland

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Advice strength query

Hi. I was focusing on the phrase "should not be adopted". The word 'should' doesn't imply requirement, but the word 'must' would. That phrase using either would still offer comparatively strong advice given lesser nudges like "are typically only adopted when it produces ...", which simply points out what does happen, or "... controversial. It may be considered when it produces ... when it is adopted ...", which simply allows for discussions. Both suggestions put explicit advisory emphasis on adhering to "general principles" i.e other policies and describing current practice, rather than prescribing current practice. I hope that helps to clarify. Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You really should archive your page again.

Thank you for your polite reply. At the moment my work has picked up and I do not have the time to devote to assisting the rewrite of the article. I should have more time by this time next week.

I agree that GA status is not my primary goal, I want to see the best article possible and could care less about the politics behind the nomination process. That goes both ways. I feel that delisting the article because it is unstable and then making dramatic changes to the article seems to me a rather transparent way to delist an otherwise acceptable article. The whole battle over GA/FA I would rather not deal with at all and focus on the content. Is that not what the project is about?

That being said, I think the rewrite can be substantially improved, and while I agree with making the article shorter, I find that the last edit has kept things that did not need to be kept and left out many things that really need to be in this article. The result is a rather hodgepodge bedlam and an inferior showing to the previous edit. Hence my vote and my concerns.

Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

CC

Hi PMA, thanks for your note. I have no previous experience of this dispute, so the background is all new to me. Do you happen to have a link to the mediation page so I can brush up on it? My thinking is that if Sunray is trusted by Nancy it would be helpful to work with him. Between us we could perhaps come up with an approach that everyone would agree to, if such a thing turns out to be needed. In fairness to any mediator at a contentious article like that they're almost bound to end up upsetting someone, and it's going to be the same with adminning there too, which is why having two of us makes sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bṛhaspati#Requested_move

Left some stats to show that Brihaspati is in common usage in Indian English. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the comments. Is the "Yes" a support? If yes, please bold it or add the word Support. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Geber

You objected to the Talk:Geber#Requested move of the Geber page to Jābir ibn Hayyān. I was wondering whether you still object to this and, if so, whether this would be on the grounds you mention there, WP:ENGLISH, or some other issue? As I mention in the discussion there, I don't think that Geber is the standard English name for this person nor should an article on him be the main entry for Geber.

If you are still uncomfortable about this suggested move, please let me know and I'll take the other route of adding hatnotes and so forth.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

words

You had me reaching for a Wiktionary three times today: archest, eirenicism, ... I can't remember the other one. Hesperian 11:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

• News and notes: Usability rollout, downtime, admin phishing, Wikimania scholarships and more

• In the news: Overdue correction, Critical Point of View conference, brief headlines

• Sister projects: A handful of happenings

• WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cocos incident

Hi PM! You may remember me from the naming discussions around Bozcaada, unless the subject have become too dusty by now. For once I was being nosey about an Australian island :) and I started the article November 2009 Cocos (Keeling) Island migrant boat disaster. Any suggestions and/or improvements would be welcome. Having drafted two other articles on migrant boat incidents, I also left a comment at Category talk:Migrant boat incidents which you may find interesting since two of the existing articles among the five in the category relates to Australia. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC) ‎

Sticky prods

Hi. You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.

There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process.

I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

• News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos

• In the news: Wikipedia influences drug terminology, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup

• Features and admins: This week in approvals

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

• Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images

• News and notes: Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case

• In the news: SCOTUS hopeful edited bio, criticism from article subject

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Parthian Empire

Hi Pmanderson. We've chatted before, mainly at Talk:Augustus. I've recently rewritten Parthian Empire, an article you've shown some interest in on its talk page. I was hoping you would have a look, maybe even copyedit if you feel it necessary. It's my greatest Wikipedia project since rewriting Han Dynasty, which also required multiple trips to the library! I think the article Parthian Empire could use more sources, though, since about half of them are book chapters in The Cambridge History of Iran. Your input on this would be appreciated. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Good work so far! One thing, though: although I have no problem with calling the region Media, unfortunately this does not link to the right page! If you feel like changing the name, provide a hidden link to Medes, otherwise the reader will be directed to a disambiguation page about communications and computing, newspapers and television (lol). Also, as to your tag in the introduction regarding the Achaemenid Empire's degree of centralization, I have written a lengthy defense of this statement at Talk:Parthian Empire. Please bring scholarly sources so that we may compare them to the sources I have used to justify this statement. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

• News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits

• In the news: Study of featured article quality, Facebook's integration of Wikipedia, and more!

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

could you take a look?

I'm fairly clueless about Wiki-etiquette, so pardon me if I go astray. I'm looking for a couple of editors with more general editing experience than I have to look at an article I just posted that's out of my usual subject areas: womb veil, a recent DYK. I'm asking you because I know you have strong and distinctive opinions that are your own. There's an editor who seems not to get the topic, and who is nevertheless trying to rewrite the article. Basically, this is the name of a contraceptive device introduced in 1864 in the U.S.; the term, as far as I can see, is purely American English, and from the initial device began to be applied more generally to diaphragms and cervical caps in a way that's hard to distinguish in the literature of the time. I have used only secondary scholarship that deals with the 'womb veil'; that is, when the social context is given, the general remarks on contraception of the period are taken from sources that specifically list the womb veil as one of the examples they're talking about. It is NOT, as this editor wants to make it, a history of barrier contraception for women. It is, as typical of articles I write, narrowly focused.

You may not be interested in the topic at all, but a disinterested perspective is greatly needed. If you could look at the article with reference to its talk page and perhaps leave a remark, I think it would be beneficial to the future of the article. Because this is outside my usual area (I found this term when looking up something about Soranus in a history of gynecology), I'm entertaining the possibility that I'm utterly wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS pages

I was most surprised to learn of the interest you manifested recently on the MOS pages, in particular WP:Words to watch. I seem to recall you were under prohibition to participate there? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement action

Please be aware that an action concerning your recent edits at a MoS talk page has been filed here. Tony (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

• From the team: Introducing Signpost Sidebars

• Museums conference: Wikimedians meet with museum leaders

• News and notes: Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!

• In the news: Making sausage, Jimmy Wales on TV, and more!

• Sister projects: Milestones, Openings, and Wikinews contest

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Gastropods

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:North-West Frontier Province

You may be interested to know that a user is refusing to consider your earlier comment at Talk:North-West Frontier Province as still valid because you have not commented there in the last few days: you may wish to comment to clarify your current position. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hello - I have made this clarification request concerning the recent AE request directed against you.  Sandstein  07:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I realise it was inappropriate for me to refer to you by nickname, and I apologise for any distress it may have caused. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad to see that ArbCom's attention is causing some self-awareness.
  • Which of the several incidents are you apologizing for. btw? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably the one I pointed out. I'm dropping by here to point out the thread on my talk page where I've pointed things out to Ohconfucius and Tony1, and also to ask you if now that (as you put it) there is more self-awareness here, you could take a look at some of the things you have said, and that others have complained about, and make similar undertakings for your future conduct? It is quite possible that some form of action will still be taken against you at arbitration enforcement (as ArbCom are endorsing Shell's original widening of the topic ban as valid), so what you need to consider here is whether you need to say more here, and looking further ahead, how you will conduct yourself when this topic ban expires and what you need to change. My hope is that you can all learn to work together, and start from what you agree with and then take it slowly and calmly on what you disagree with. Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr Anderson, I am very willing to try to overcome our differences in attitude to the MoS; or failing that, to explore areas in which we might respect each other or come to a better mutual understanding. As you know, I admire your expertise in the classics. Tony (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

János Szapolyai -> John Zápolya?

Hello! I'm interested in your opinion here. I'd appreciate if you could take a look. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

• Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia

• News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news

• In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Book review

Perhaps if you have time you might be in a position to provide feedback on this piece. Tony (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

• From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted

• Commons deletions: Porn madness

• Book review: Dan O'Sullivan's Wikipedia: a new community of practice?

• Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide

• News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All

• In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Hello, Please do not make further uncivil comments such as this and this. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're more then welcome to criticise the article, but need to do so without the personal insults. I note that you were also warned for this in the FAC by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) ([22]). Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas George Churchill Wimsey, 10th Duke of Denver

The article Thomas George Churchill Wimsey, 10th Duke of Denver has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A fictional ancestor of a fictional character (Lord Peter Wimsey); T.G.C. Wimsey is not a character in the Lord Peter Wimsey stories at all, let alone a minor character. No real-world coverage and no importance within the work of fiction. Non-notable per WP:FICT.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. +Angr 18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver

I have nominated Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. +Angr 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the time to content-review an FAC?

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parthian_Empire/archive1 Tony (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

• News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum

• In the news: In the news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Parthian Empire

You were right about Syme; he did explicitly mention Mark Antony's decision to ignore the Parthian threat in Syria by amassing his forces in Italy to confront Octavian (before they eventually agreed to convene for negotiations). While Syme only mentions Lucius Decidius Saxa in passing and in regards to his defeat at the hands of the Parthians, Kennedy (1996: 80) actually says that Mark Antony left Saxa in command of Syria with only a modest force, perhaps two legions. Anyways, good catch; I've added this material to the article. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Thank s for moving back the page, but you have not closed the requested move. Please do so. Thanks --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

P. P. Arnold

Hi could you read this, I refer to the "move discussion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:P._P._Arnold#Chicago_Manual_of_Style (E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating a topic ban on style guidelines and personal attacks. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shell ^babelfish 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is punitive, not preventative. I unintentionally infringed the restrictions of the ArbCom decision, which is about to expire. I have long since ceased commenting on the issue, which is resolved. Since then (and almost a month ago), I said I would not have involved myself in the page if I had realized it was a MOS page; and I have abstained from it. This matter is so old that it has dropped off WP:AE; if you want to know the history, or some of it, you will have to go to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, or to the history of AE.

Decline reason:

Editing an MOS talkpage and then editing the MOS page itself is not "unintentional". Stating that those who don't like the change can "rotate" is inappropriate, even though my office chair is of the swivel type (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• No, this block was for new edits yesterday here and here. Shell ^babelfish 15:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That is not a page of the Manual of Style. I asked immediately after the date-delinking decision whether it covered the Naming Conventions (now Article Titles, and its subpages), and was told that it doesn't - I have been editing them for the year.
  • My impatience was because there has been a steady stream of questions why American municipalities differ from others, and a clear answer, which we have had to repeat every time the talk paqe was refreshed. The reasons for the present wording are clear, but long buried in the archives; the purpose of guidelines is so we don't have to repeat ourselves. Time to put it in the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It wasn't - originally the Naming Conventions page described dispute resolution and the history of resolutions. It has since been moved, updated and changed into a style guideline (clearly noted on the page in fact).
      • And I was part of the discussion that renamed it. As I said, I asked whether the Naming Conventions came under the date-delinking decision, and was told they did not - I have edited them in good faith for a year. The decision on this, last July, is linked to here.
    • We all get frustrated - lashing out at other editors is never an appropriate response to frustration. Shell ^babelfish 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't lash out at anybody in particular - certainly not the harmless newbie who merely deserves an answer to his question, and does not now have one. When unblocked, I will strike the phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it's worth considering that if you changed your method of interacting on policy/guideline/style pages to avoid letting your frustration show, or considered coming back to things later when you can make a less acerbic comment, you wouldn't have to be concerned about what kind of guideline a particular page is. I'm going to go ahead and unblock you, but please think about the fact that it's less the pages you're editing than the way you're interacting that's at issue here. Shell ^babelfish 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was impatient, not because I answered quickly, but because the question had been sitting there, unanswered, for far too long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Killed the autoblock. Honestly, your answer is a bit confusing - because someone else didn't answer the question as soon as you would have expected you felt the need to make a rude comment? That just doesn't even make sense to me. Whatever the cause, if you can find a way to leave that extra bit of flavor off comments, you'd probably find folks would be less concerned about where you're editing. Shell ^babelfish 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because nobody had answered at all. Too many newbies are blown off this way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this a few days ago. Just adding a brief comment here to say that although I don't think you are the only person on the MoS pages and the naming guideline pages to experience frustration and to use acerbic and sometimes overly strong language, you do need to observe the spirit of topic bans (i.e. avoid letting frustration get the better of you) dial it down whenever you do find others not getting the history of the pages or the naming conventions, as misunderstandings like this can happen all too easily, especially as the MoS and guideline pages are in flux and it is not always easy to tell which are which from month to month. I too disagree with too much being brought under the umbrella of MOS, but there are ways to say this without letting your frustration show or antagonising others. If there was some meta-RfC on where the dividing line should be drawn, I'd happily contribute to that, as the minutiae of individual naming conventions is a bit much for me at times. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

• News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Wikipedia Bill", unsourced bios declining

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

John Thompson House, Highland, NY

Thank you for improving the article. I'm new at this and want the articles to appear as they should. I appreciate this.Jenifergamber (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaius Considius Longus

Could you take a look at the infobox on Gaius Considius Longus to see whether you think my concerns (expressed on the talk page) might be valid, or whether I'm making distinctions that are unnecessarily slender?

And BTW, I think it's ridiculous to block an editor with a long record of valuable contributions for not wearing a Stepford smile. There's a point where faux politeness gets in the way of rigorous thinking and getting things done. Not that I delved into the specifics; just noticed the above in visiting here. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus name discssion

Since you contributed to the discussion on the name change of Saint Peter, you may be interested in the discussion on the name change for Paul of Tarsus. Cjc13 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

• From the team: Changes to the Signpost

• News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more

• In the news: Cancer coverage, cognitive surplus, Wikipedia monarchy, and more

• Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelm I, German Emperor

Hi Sept. Having got a strong consensus for moving this (see the talk page) to William I, German Emperor - how do we now go about it? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

The list of wars between democracies has after discussion and reached consensus, been cleaned of everything that isn't actually wars between democracies. Your revert is against consensus, which you would have noticed if you had looked at edit history or on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your revert is still against the consensus, as I previously explained. As such it is vandalism, and you simply reverting instead of engaging in discussion is edit warring. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Please stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. You know you are wrong, none of your sources support the statement and one of the contradicts it. If you continue like this, you will sooner or later be blocked. It's not a constructive way forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of wars between democracies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ref: [23] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know that the sources does not support your addition of the Boer wars, yet you persist, despite repeated notifications and explanations. Continue and you will get yourself blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiding your warnings is considered bad form, but allowed. But note that the warning itself doesn't go away just because you remove it from your talk page. It's still valid. You make changes against both consensus, and against your own statements, and whose sources contradict your edits. If you continue like this you *will* get blocked. Try to engage in discussion and consensus building instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand and misquote polioy - as you misunderstand and misquote everything else. Stay out of my talk-page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You MUST be kidding: Alexander Hamilton

You really think trashing up the Alexander Hamilton article with a redlink is going to motivate someone to write an article about an obscure 18th century figure who's virtually unknown and likely unknowable? Why don't you write the article yourself and then reapply the Wikilink? All you're doing is throwing a bag of litter out the car window, onto the front lawn of the Hamilton article. The rationale for your reinstatement of a known-to-be-red link is specious and preposterous. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-natured response to my grumpy note. Redlinks are a pet wikipedia peeve of mine — overlinking in general, let alone up blind alleys — but I'm sure that some day I'll actually see someone scurry to write a page to turn a redlink blue. Cheers. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

• Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

• News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft new ATT proposal

Hi PMA, I am working in my user space on a draft for a new ATT proposal, and would appreciate your input, if you have the time and inclination. It would be especially helpful to know if your reservations about the old version have been addressed. If you plan to review it, please see the associated rationale page first for a quick overview. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

• News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Wikipedia, brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

• Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

List of wars between democracies

Could you please assist in a WQA concerning an editor with whom you had a dispute on this article.[24] TFD (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

When an editor claims that a source says what the source doesn't say...

Hi! Sorry to bother you. I thought you might be interested in Talk:Charles Henri, Prince of Commercy#Names. I'd appreciate your opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Romano-Chinese relations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1r

Please self revert, you just broke the 1r restriction with this edit [25] at Mass killings under Communist regimes mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, 1 revert does not violate 1RR. The particular edit prior to your revert might be questionable though. I haven't followed the page enough to know for certain, but I think there's a fair chance that you're OK. But it is conceivable that he could put together a valid 1RR report against you. BigK HeX (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See Here and please remove your insinuations of sockpuppetry mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley is correct about 1RR, at least that is how an administrator will see it. You really must self-revert. TFD (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If an admin asks me, I will be perfectly happy to do so. I have started, I hope, a discussion, which was my only purpose, and I do not intend to go further. However, I do not believe that to be the wording of the 1RR warning; nor is it consistent with the purpose of our edit-warring restrictions, which discourage efforts by article owners to freeze them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

• UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups

• News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative

• In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches

• Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Pretty sure you're used to this sort of thing by now. User:OpenFuture has requested someone who isn't him notify you of this ANI thread. --erachima talk 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

• News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia

• In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles

• Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets

• WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Carthago

When I was a child, my father used to make a very careful distinction between being ignorant and being stupid: the former could be remedied, the latter couldn't be helped and should be treated with kindness. Then one day, when I was all grown up, he surprised me by saying "Some people will be ignorant no matter how much education they're given." I didn't know what to make of that for years; I thought he had momentarily lost his precision of thought. Since then, I've come to embrace the concept of willful ignorance. It has recently been illuminated.

(I didn't think you were arguing against me at that one point; I thought you might be about to lure me out for sport when I wandered a bit off-topic.) Cynwolfe (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You may already know this, but one of the participants in the discussion at Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies has been found to be so deficient in his understanding of sources and the Wikipedia policies that pertain to them, that he's on sourcing probation. That probation only applies to one topic area; perhaps it needs to be expanded? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PMA, just read your note. It's often the case that when people can't back up their arguments, they start complaining that other editors aren't nice to them. Notions of 'civility', which ought to prevent name-calling and mindless yelling, are used to suppress vigorous intellectual debate. The tactics are obvious: block an opposing view not by discrediting it on its merit, but by provoking the other editor into losing it. I took the bait, foolishly. No one's ever made any formal complaint about me before, so I have no clue how I'm supposed to respond. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to do anything further unless I have to. Not the hill I'd choose to die on. Next time I'll assume kindness is called for. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to post this but anyway, here it is. I've been given a copy of Richard Miles' newish Carthage must be destroyed: the rise and fall of an ancient civilization, Allen Lane (Penguin), 2010. Its index points to democratic faction (150s) and rise of power of Popular Assembly. Would you be interested in risking my manual transcript of relevant pages? Of course there's no guarantee that any of this would satisfy requirements; you know, the right kind of author, history, Carthage, democracy, Popular Assembly, opinions, that sort of thing. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Marvellous coincidence! And what a playwright. Alas, my overnight sweep through Miles' lesser work turned up nothing that would satisfy such interestingly original and strict scholarly criteria; but at least all this has roused my interest in Carthaginian and Roman politics. Haploidavey (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oxford spelling

Thanks for finding evidence linking OUP style with "Oxford spelling". I lost attention briefly -- sorry -- but I've now made a further comment on that talk page. Andrew Dalby 09:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the Rosetta Stone is close to your heart, but any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosetta Stone/archive1 would be welcome. Thanks -- Andrew Dalby 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rioni of the City of Rome

There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. I have notified you as you were previously involved in the discussion on a Naming convention for Italian cities. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change evidence

It looks like the AFD is closed. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous mootch

To: User talk:AliceJMarkham, User talk:Bearcat, User talk:Fuhghettaboutit, User talk:Jehochman, User talk:Jokestress, and User:Pmanderson

Hi folks,

While I know that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, I've read edits from each of you and figure that you might have something to contribute to my RD question Being private verses public?. If you can help, I'd greatly appreciate it, though even your attention here is appreciated as well. Thanks.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Could you please respond in this thread when you have a moment [26] thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass Killings under Communist Regimes

Hi, I saw that mentioned something about suggesting that article be deleted. I am wondering how that process works and if I can support you in it? Best wishes,--ValenShephard 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Affixiation

The prefix you were looking for was il-, not semi-. On the subject of fixing, I've run out of pins, I fear. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have something in mind too. Were you thinking of an article section, or an independent article? I think I've framed a topic that would provide plenty of material for an independent article, now that I've seen that this is a clear (and in retrospect unsurprising, given Polybius) theme in classical scholarship and ancient history. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If I were working on the list article, I would let the just-blanked section go for now and concentrate on maintaining the entries for which you can make the strongest case. Thinking long-term. Decide which territory you can hold while expending the fewest resources. Lay the foundation for Carthage either offline or on a user page. When I have a draft article, I'll post it on a user page and you can see whether you're interested in it. I'd like to have some input from several editors before I post it in a public space — I'm sure I can't bring up to speed myself without expending far more time than I would want. It would be more like an introduction and outline to be filled in. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How odd. The Second Punic War does seem an omission worth noticing in History of Carthage. Even if it's covered thoroughly elsewhere, it should have a minimal paragraph and a "Main article" or "See also." So yes, I would think that a good thing to fill in, as a matter completely separate from how it relates to any other article. Carthaginian Republic redirects to Carthaginian Empire, which predictably is consumed by military history and says very little about politics and government. Haploidavey left a note above, I see, under "Carthago"; didn't know he might be interested in this too. I'll let you know if I come up with anything worth looking at. Trying to finish up with a group of little articles first (utterly utterly unrelated to this).. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Signing

Me again. Yeah, I've been told about singing posts but it doesn't seem to work. I'm not a total noob with computers so I've tried typing 4 tildes manually, using the sign icon at the top of this box and the 4 tildes icon at the bottom. Odd. Do you have to put the tildes in brackets? What do you think it could be? I'll try now to sign manually, hmm.ValenShephard 23:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Deep breath

It's my advice that you take one. Don't lose the ground you've gained. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are blocked for 48 hrs for continuing personal attacks

You were previously warned, and indicated in the RFC in progress that you understood, to stop making personal attacks on other users.

These three edits: [27] [28] [29] contain further personal attacks.

This behavior is not OK. I listed the reasons and rationale behind the NPA policy and how personal attacks and incivility disrupt the Encyclopedia in the RFC outside view section I authored, which has a very significant supporters section. It seemed from your earlier reactions like you understood the situation. However, that series of edits weren't acceptable.

I have placed a 48 hr block on your account for personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

{{unblock}} All three of these diffs discuss a post, not a user. A repeated, and demonstrably false, statement about the outside world may be a misunderstanding; a repeated, and demonstrably false, claim about the talkpage in which the conversation occurs is a lie. Nevertheless, if a commenting admin can suggest a gentler form of words, I will adopt it; I see none.

As a further offer, I will stay away from the talkpage in question for 48 hours (which will serve the preventative purpose of this block), except to announce that I am doing so and make any alteration commended by my friends. I shall then adopt the policy (which I had intended anyway) of not responding to the user in question at all - except in reply to direct questions about edits.

Admin reviewing block, please read the entire talkpage discussion. OpenFuture persistently distorts anything said by any other person, making up policy as he goes along. It is enough to drive anyone to drink, and it is hardly surprising that PMAnderson has had occasion to be mildly rude to him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(response by blocking admin to PMA and Elen)

I agree with the statement that there's an underlying other-editors behavioral issue here as well. However, being frustrated or baited does not excuse rude behavior.

The specific comments which percipitated the block were listed in the diffs. The offending comments within those were:

• If I had seen this open lie, I would not have bothered replying to OpenFraudFuture's more specious claim below.
• This entire post of 15:44 is a tissue of lies.
• OpenFuture has a long habit of not seeing the obvious. We cannot force him to open his eyes.

Of these, the third was most innocuous, and by itself would not have led to a block, though I note it here for context. The second was overly confrontational and over the line, but would not have been actionable for a normal user (one not, for example, under a current User Conduct RFC for being rude and insulting to this very user). The first was, under the circumstances, the comment that was clearly over the line under any circumstance and under these particulars not something I was willing to ignore.

I do not disagree with PMAs being frustrated or baited. But it's not ok to say things like that first comment in response to baiting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You will see Cynwolfe's remark on the first edit above; she suggested I take a breather, and I did so; that should indicate that I thought it was not what I should have said. But the most offensive word is already struck.

Are you going to do something about the baiting? We both know that the sort of user who baits will take such a block as this as admin approval of their possition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have 30+ browser tabs open on analyzing that right now. Will take a few more hours before I can take action (I have to go get dinner). But, yes. At the very least I am going to issue some warnings. A community topic ban is with the realm of what I'm prepared to propose tonight, though I am not committing that I'll end up doing that until I'm done analyzing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw. Elen: one answer to Martin's question is Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War by John J. Mearsheimer; International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer, 1990), pp. 5-56, who cites Doyle and takes a somewhat stronger position - and it would be nice to have some evidence that Michael Doyle is fringe before blanking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Comment) Generally, referring to edits by any user as 'lies' or 'tissue of lies' is not something that can be characterized as a constructive or good idea (irrespective of the veracity of what that editor was saying). Frankly, I am surprised that an editor as erudite as yourself needs to use this sort of calumnious tone in your edits and strongly suggest that you do not do so, whatever the provocation. You could, for example, say something like "what you say is not correct" or "you say xxxxx, but that is not true because yyyyy." I note that you are willing to consider alternative phrasing of your statements, and willing to go the extra mile with a personal 48hr topic ban (which is not necessary provided you rephrase your comments in a more polite fashion) and so I'm going to unblock you Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I shall comply. (If you are still watching this page, however, I should point out that these are statements on which I have said "incorrect" once, and had the statement repeated.) How about "terminological inexactitude"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on this particular incident of possible inexactitude, I understand your frustration. However, incorrect means the same thing in a politer way. If you believe that a particular user is repeatedly inexact in exactly the same way, perhaps calling it to the attention of an admin (I note that GWH is looking into this) or raising the issue at some other forum (ANI, RfC, etc.) is better. As you can see, calumny tends to be a distraction that is easily exploited. (I have unblocked you but, since I rarely do this, am not sure if I've jumped through every unblock hoop. Let me know if you still cannot edit.)--RegentsPark (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It took a while for the autoblock to go, but it's OK now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads description of the events and discussion is completely untrue. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Side note - I said I expected to get to this tonight. Unfortunately I got tangled up (literally - big leg muscle cramp that I had to work out) and will have to work on it tomorrow. My apologies - the situation does deserve admin attention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean break?

Pmanderson, when you "describe me" as you say, you don't describe me at all. You describe what you want me to be, because if I was like that, then that automatically you make you correct. It would mean that you don't have to care about what I say, answer my questions, read my arguments or explain your position. Because If I really was a stupid liar, then I wouldn't be worth bothering about. That is just how you respond to having somebody coming up with actual arguments against you. You make up this horrible little "OpenFraud" and you describe *him*. However, that is not me. That's a straw man you made up so you would not have to defend your position.

What would be constructive is if, when you arrive back to this article in 48h, you stop arguing with the straw man you call OpenFraud, and start listening to *me*. Because if you do, I'm pretty sure things will go forward here much faster.

Therefore, I propose a clean break. I will from now on pretend as if we haven't met before, and start over on this discussion, if you do the same. Because obviously your behavior made me less inclined to listen to you too. But I can shake that off and start over, if you like. I think you will see that we are both intelligent, learned people with a lot of common interests. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mearsheimer

Marting's quotes seem to indicate that his final conclusion was 'maybe not'. On that basis, while it certainly isn't fringe to suggest that Germany was a democracy in 1914, there so far isn't a substantial mainstream view that it is. On that basis, I am so far minded to leave it out, but I personally would add a note somewhere to explain this, as the more casual reader may expect to see WWI in there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Project Muse

I've emailed a request to you. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AT

PMA I would prefer to discuss our differences which is the only reason I have not reported your reverting to WP:3RR because as far as I can tell you are over the limit and if not your last revert was within minutes of a 24 hour period. As far as I can see your only wriggle room is to argue that the first edit was not a revert, but AFAICT that would rather undermine the rest of you arguments.

I would ask you as a gesture of good will to revert you last revert. I will be pleasantly surprised if you do. Also given you recent RfC and some of the comment higher up this page, I am surprised that you posted this message "01:52, 12 August 2010 Pmanderson (The next one who reverts this will be taken to ANI.)" as I would have thought the last place you would want to go is to ANI. -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

You need to handle this one. I'm going to go hide in a storm drain. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning, I think this may be quite sincere, but I don't know how to handle the teaching moment without lapsing into my schoolmarm mode, which I have reason to believe that others find tiresome. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can't use the word "remedial." Cynwolfe (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Will murmur maieutic … maieutic as I go to sleep tonight. I suppose one good result from all this is that I'm more aware of when I'm about to start gouging out eyes, or when I can do nothing but. I'm going to go work on an article about a dam, and when someone who knows something about engineering tells me I haven't a clue what "installed capacity" means, I'm going to emoticon sweetly and speak of analogous produce. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have to go along with this charade? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the wounded tone … Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dating by x [again]

Hey PMA. Thought you should see User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim#St_Nicholas_Hospital.2C_St_Andrews. The issue of adding "date 1 x date 2" to the MoS has come up again. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. :-)

Thanks for stalking me to OSC OSCar. :-) You are welcome to make more spellchecks on it, as I'm going to fix it up more, it was a rather sad article. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more

• In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Turpan

Why exactly are you dropping in and moving this page with no discussion whatsoever? It's been almost a year since this was last discussed, so it's strange for you to suddenly show up now. And when it was discussed, only one user supported the name "Turfan" for this article. If you have a problem with it, start a new discussion, or report me for whatever kind of misconduct you seem to think I've committed. But when an article move has been known to be contentious in the past, it's not appropriate to just show up and make that same move all over again just because you think no one's paying attention anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's not ok for me to judge the case based on my experience with the topic, but it is ok for you to? As for signs that outside opinion was solicited, did you bother looking for any? I left message at project pages and invited individual editors to comment, that's why there was other people commenting.

Your move is just as improper as mine and, by the way, I'm not using any "admin tools" to move it. Again, if you disagree, start a discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As for presenting "declamation" rather than evidence, how are long lists of links and policy arguments not evidence? Just because you don't agree with them. Trying to characterize your "opponent"'s contributions as declamation and rhetoric is not a mature way to go about dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've moved the page again. Are you going to actually discuss the merits of the title, or are you going to repeat history by rules lawyering and refusing to engage in discussion? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are still making bogus claims about "declamation", apparently you are just as interested in rhetoric without substance as you think I am. Are you ever intending to respond to my above messages? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And regarding another part of your message at the RFC, how have I "abused admin tools" to enforce this move? That is a serious accusation, and if you really feel I have done so you should take the issue to the proper venues, rather than just puffing up your statements with meaningless drivel like this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

I saw a comment of yours and thought you needed to think your statement over with some

intelati has given you some popcorn. Popcorn is crunchy goodness, and is wonderfully delicious!

On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of popcorn by adding {{subst:Popcorn}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Byzantine names

Hello. I know that you do not like the ODB naming system, and that you prefer latinized forms. Yet the former is the one that has been established as the norm in Wikipedia by consensus, not the latter. If you wish to change that, go ahead and make a proposal, but in the meantime, please don't move articles around without a reason. Regards, Constantine ✍ 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, you can always ask for the issue to be re-examined. As it stands however, moving isolated articles to latinized forms when the vast majority is in ODB style is not only contrary to uniformity, it is also a pure case of WP:POINT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT... There is nothing in WP:GREEK that says that names have to be latinized, and I do have the impression that aside from the ODB, several dozen Byzantinists like John Haldon, constitute English-language sources, and they do not use latinized forms. Also, the more recent publications increasingly tend to follow ODB forms, and not the latinized ones. Constantine ✍ 23:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, that is a serious argument. However, what about uniformity and more recent usage? Even Cameron has converted to the ODB style, judging from some of her latest publications... I'd also like to point out that there is nothing inherently more "correct" in the latinizations as they are being traditionally used either: unless you'd like to change "Constantine Porphyrogenitus" to "Constantinus Porphyrogenitus", it as much a hybrid as "Constantine Porphyrogennetos"... Constantine ✍ 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of this book re Cameron's use of ODB style. As for the "porphyrogenitus", all right, replace it with any other surname/sobriquet that does not have entered the English language, like "Ducas", "Parapinaces" or "Lecapenus"... What is the difference to any outsider between "Cerularius" and "Keroularios"? None. They are both renderings of the native Greek name. Granted, the ODB forms look awkward to the eye because although latinate forms are familiar, Greek transliterations are not (it took me some time to get used to it when I first encountered it, having been accustomed to Norwich and Runciman). Anyhow, in published sources, AFAIK, the ODB form is gaining ground and is very widely used, and there appears to be no sign of it being discarded now or in the near future... Constantine ✍ 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, I too consider "Konstantinos" too much, although the Germans for one seem to use these forms without problem...Constantine ✍ 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to get very annoyed here. You don't like it, understood and respected. However there is clear evidence that the ODB form is very widely used by people like Haldon, Mango, Kaegi, McGeer, magdalino, Laiou, Jeffreys et al. You do not have a rational, substantiated basis beyond IDONTLIKEIT, that much is clear. ODB standard is no more and no less "irrational" than the half-latinizations you seem to prefer. For the last time, stop acting unilaterally. You are waging a one-man crusade, in contravention of several of the core policies linked in your own page. Constantine ✍ 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If "John Ducas" is not a half-latinization, then what is it? It is on the same level of "bastard/hybrid" as "John Doukas". And since both "Ducas" and "Doukas" are and mean the same, moving from one form to the other is an exercise of WP:POINT, unless you also go and move all the Doukas articles. I really can't see why your preference should be preferred over what the majority of Byzantinists appear to be using in the past two decades... As for this, I consider it petty at the least, insulting at worst. I had expected better of you... Constantine ✍ 19:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not your fault that you complied with the imbecile convention - but it's time to rebel. I'll get to all the Ducas articles if necessary; but it would be nice to have some help.

As for John Ducas, it's an anglicization, like John Tzimisces - which we almost use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. If you check the discussions on the name changes, back then I was against the move. Right now however the ODB forms are almost overwhelmingly used. Moving a couple thousand WP articles around should be justified with more than the need to rebel against something some people perceive to be wrong. I want Pluto to be re-classified as a planet, and think that the IAU made a stupid decision in its classification scheme, and others want the Republic of Macedonia to be FYROM or even Republic of Skopje. In WP, as you very well know, we are expected to follow scholarly usage, not try to formulate it. Until such usage can be demonstrated to have rejected the ODB forms, there is simply no reason to change it. Constantine ✍ 19:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of your rollback

Re. your action: (Reverted edits by Dr.K. (talk) to last version by Pmanderson). Quote from: Wikipedia:Rollback#When_not_to_use_rollback: Rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by any administrator. Guide your future actions accordingly. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wirtinger derivatives

Hello, I have answered to your deep criticism Talk:Wirtinger_derivatives here. Best Regards, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you did not answered to my questions. However I replied to your statement: please, have a look. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton infobox

Not sure what your intent was with this edit, but it broke transclusion of the infobox. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

adjective question

What is the difference between "Dionysian" and "Dionysiac", or "Bacchanalian" and "Bacchic"? If one searches Google Books with the first pair, "Dionysian" is more likely to turn up Nietzsche and the like, while "Dionysiac" gives you books almost entirely within the field of classical studies. "Dionysian" is obviously the more common term, for such phrases as "dionysian revels" to mean general debauchery. Does this hold true for Bacchanalian/Bacchic too? The -ian suffix is going to be the term for general usage, though it might also be used in discussing ancient religion practice, but -ic will be used only in the technical sense pertaining to the cult? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

also

I can't locate the article you referred to. But it's true that all too often I have to point out that most occurrences of "also" are—to use one of Fowler's epithets—idle. Do you not agree? Tony (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

As you can see here: Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Compromise_--_Med.2C_Socks.2C_200.2C_and_1, even a proposal for PC that would cover probably less than 400 articles is attracting editors with strong opposition. As I've said, it's pretty unclear to me where opposers would like to compromise, and it does, in fact, look like many will not compromise. BigK HeX (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aorist. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Homs/Hims Categories

You commented on the Homs/Hims discussion, so I am notifying you of the current Category discussion at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 6#Category:Hims. --Bejnar (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming concern

Any opinion on this? — AjaxSmack 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Because you participated in a previous discussion on the subject, I'm letting you know that a discussion has started about opneing a Request for Comments concerning "Bronx" versus "The Bronx" as the article title. You can find it here Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

Moving the page again after being instructed to achieve consensus first can only be described as disruption and is certainly not a productive way of editing. Don't do it again.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have started discussion of your editing behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Aorist. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don`t

[30] accuse me of wikihounding nor threaten me. mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Taivo (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed that and the diffs Taivo posted there, and the edit history on the Aorist talk page, I have to conclude that you seem not to have gotten the message from the User Conduct RFC earlier this summer.

I appreciate that you put yourself out on a break on the Aorist talk page. That's an action to defuse conflict. But - for the record - before that break, you clearly have been going too far there. You were still ignoring WP:CIVIL and treating people abusively in a casual manner. That's still disrupting articles and discussions.

I am currently somewhat loath to stomp on you after you took an action to defuse the situation, as that would send entirely the wrong message and not help things at all. But, please be aware that your actions are now again under enhanced scrutiny. Please re-read the independent opinions from the RFC, and WP:CIVIL.

It may be time for you to consider a self-imposed ban from that article talk page, if you have been having ongoing problems working constructively there. You're just getting yourself in trouble.

Please, take the next step back, think about what you're doing, and find another way.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article is developed from its present condition by Wareh and Cynwolfe and Erutonon and Radagast, my work there is done. If the article is unprotected, and Radagast can be persuaded to reconsider his plan to leave Wikipedia because of the conduct of two editors on this article, we will have been restored to the situation of August 16, with an incomplete but promising article worked on in harmony. None of the editors I have named (and so far none of those they have invited) supports the One True Terminology in which all languages must be discussed; none of them adhere to some One True Theory of the aorist, to which all sources must be made to conform - whether they do or not. My concerns with the existing text are lesser matters of clarity and nuance, which today's comments show ample concern with.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to plan to leave Wikipedia in discouragement, but neither should you count on future development from me. I note you are editing the lead right now. Just curious after a casual survey (maybe missing much) of recent developments: why not shift to a model more like GPuvedorj's, which seems at the same time to say "it's an object of philological study in Gk and IE languages that got taken over to mean something in general linguistics," and actually to meet with the approval of one or more of those promoting the "general linguistics" treatment? Wareh (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your civilty

Please do mind your civilty, you are very close to crossing some limits with your recurring personal attacks and snide remarks. It would be a shame if you were blocked just when the discussion is turning productive.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aorist

Thanks for the heads-up. I left a suggestion, but am unlikely to be heavily involved -- the conduct of two specific editors on that page has pretty much convinced me to leave Wikipedia. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As you are no doubt aware, one of those editors is an admin; nothing but grief can come from fighting admins. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did add several sources to the version at User:Radagast3/Aorist, but one editor was so certain of his/her POV that sources were treated as irrelevant. I tried very hard to negotiate some kind of compromise early on, but failed, and I'm all out of suggestions on proceeding further. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 if you think an admin is abusing his mop there are avenues to take. Never allow one admin to be a bully, of whom do you speak? use my e-mail if you would prefer to keep it quite mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Metonymy and metaphor in grammar, perfective aspect with stative verbs often results (as the aorist tense with stative verbs) in ingressive meaning. Here is confirmation for the Taivo or Kwami's claim that ingressive aspect is simply a variation on the regular aspectual meaning of the aorist. — Eru·tuon 00:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

PMA, you left a redlink in your request at the G&R Project. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak

Hi, I am replying to "Can you think of a better wording? That wasn't intended as a "rule", but to reflect the software constraint that every article must have one title as part of its URL." sentence.

I used the idea of combining two names with a slash in Darth Vader page. The problem is Anakin Skywalker is the name of the character in episodes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 while Darth Vader is used in episodes 3, 4, 5, and 6. The character's name throughout the series is neither Anakin Skywalker nor Darth Vader. I have suggested using Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader as the article title. A google books search show that there are at least 37 books that use that combined name, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. But, the editors opposed this name, acoording to them, the double name is a violation of "every article must have one title" rule. So, I was curious about whether double name in Imia/Kardak is a violation of WP policy. Secondly, the editors argued that Darth Vader is the most common name and it should thus be the name of the article. They would be right if the name of the character was Darth Vader in episodes 1 and 2. Eventually, the WP:RM dicsussion was closed and the result was "oppose move". Kavas (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But, you can use Bolzano or Bozen as the name of city, they are both correct names, you don't need to combine them. In the case of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, consider you have chosen Darth Vader, it is never used in episodes 1 and 2. Then, you cannot say "Darth Vader is a character in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Consider you have chosen Anakin Skywalker, it is never used in episode 4. But, according to the article, "Darth Vader, also known as Anakin Skywalker, is a fictional and central character in the Star Wars saga, appearing as the chief antagonist in the original trilogy and one of the main protagonists in the prequel films". But, Darth Vader did not appear in Episodes 1 and 2. I think this article is a special case. Kavas (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Hey, sorry, I was just trying to make it clear that the article was addressing the ancient Greek aorist as it's discussed within the field of classical studies, both among professional philologists and as pedagogy, and as applies to NT hermeneutics — that is, that the article was a distinct and justifiable content fork, not a POV fork, from an article on a linguistic approach to the aorist. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Technical jargon had started to inundate it yesterday evening. A sentence cited to Smyth contained what I can only imagine to have been voces magicae. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at Talk:Yagneshwara_(avatar).
Message added 16:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Turpan/Turfan

Since it seems we don't agree on how to interpret the outcome of the RfC, I have filed a mediation request to try and get an outside editor to determine the consensus here. Please respond at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Turpan. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation will only be accepted if it's about article content issues; since you keep bringing up personal issues, it's gonna be rejected, and the issue is not going to get resolved. Sigh... rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rjanag (Result: ). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson, please respond to the AN3 complaint. The allegation there says you are refusing to accept the result of an RfC. One option nobody has mentioned is for the parties to ask an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC and state the result. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage length

Not related to the above message, but I just wanted to say, if you would take a moment to archive your talk page it would be much appreciated. I could barely open it over my slow internet connection because it's rather long right now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My friends are welcome. If it deters others, so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Undo wheel warrior"

I think you should be a little more cautious in your edit summaries. This was bordering on a personal attack, and was quite inappropriate since you are in fact edit warring yourself. Thparkth (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pmanderson redux. Thank you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, were you thinking in renaming Rjanag's contribution into a new section "Irrelevant abuse"?

[31]

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was largely irrelevant, the remainder was false; and it was abuse.

Please post the following at ANI for me:

This irresponsible admin moved Turfan to Turpan, despite strong opposition by User:Alefbe; closed the eventual discussion on the title at Talk:Turfan#Title, and now, after a further inconclusive discussion at Talk:Turfan#Naming in which he was the chief advocate, has moved it again twice (using his bit to delete the redirect). He himself admits that it was not closed by a neutral observer. He then went to Ecit-Warring; and now comes here.

There is now a move discussion, at which he strongly opposed; so I strongly supported. The post he complains about says:

Uh-oh, your support was "strong" [ so I guess you win. As for "demonstrating actual consensus", have you read the RfC, or any of my messages? I will say it again: four out of five editors there presented reasons for moving it to Turpan. How is that not consensus? (Oh, right, because you don't like those reasons.)

A very pretty piece of abuse - and falsehood, since several of those four editors said they didn't much care - and if it weren't for Rjanag's abuse, I wouldn't care all that much myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Posted to ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month

Let's see...

moving someone else's comment into a new "irrelevant abuse" subsection

"This is shameful disregard of Rjanag's years of misconduct. "

[32]

When your User conduct RFC ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson ) came through, I put in the opinion that you needed to be more careful going forwards. Near universal support. You said you'd listened.

When you were blocked for being abusive near the end of the RFC, you agreed to behave yourself in the future.

Multiple ANI threads over the intervening two months established that we do mean this and take it seriously.

And yet, here we are. You're at it again.

That's enough. This has to stop. You are blocked for a month, for personal attacks, disruption, incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

But it is and was misconduct. How is admin abuse to be resisted, if it cannot be named? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for uninvolved admins to review his actions, to see if he used admin powers to win a content dispute or otherwise was abusive.

On the specific point of whether he misrepresented others' opinions in the RFC - I re-read all of that, and all four of the other people either slightly or moderately agreed with him. I think he may have overstated their enthusiasm, but a preference is a preference. He didn't lie about that.

Calling for independent admin review of his actions to see if he was misusing the tools would have been one thing. What you did here was exactly the behavior we have told you over and over and over and over again not to do. This has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

I saw the following pattern: an admin moved a page against opposition; closed his own move request twice, and moved the page at least twice. I could have gone to ArbCom with thisl but would probably have been denied; short of that, how should it have been referred to? "Misconduct" is as mild as I can see; any less and I am pretending it wasn't there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In other news, please archive this page. It's ridiculous to try and open, and over 7 times the length at which it is recommended to archive. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I will consider that in a month; while blocked, I can't - and I should prefer not to have someone else decide which items are still current.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I offer to Archive it for you if you like The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'd rather not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, PMA got upset the last time someone tried archiving on his behalf, so it takes a brave man to dare to risk incurring his wrath. ;-) Arguably, all the current (sic) stuff – stuff which hasn't been touched since as recently as September 2008 – will no longer be current when his block expires. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I observe this complaint of Rjanag's conduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

or at least reply: this was a case in which an admin has closed a move request, after being the chief voice on the side of the issue. I was blocked for calling this "misconduct"; yet it was clearly at least controversial conduct: the discussion at ANIgenerally disapproved of his actions; it has been unfavorably discussed there before. In short, what language should I have used which would have been sufficiently parliamentary in describing this? If no substitute can be suggested, please unblock me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Misconduct by others, if any, does not justify misconduct by you. This block was discussed on WP:ANI, where all who commented on it agreed with it. As concerns your question, you could have refrained from prefacing another editor's statement with the header "irrelevant abuse". That you do not seem to understand this is all the more reason not to unblock you.  Sandstein  07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, you shouldn't have moved the comment into the "irrelevant abuse" section. Do you see that that wasn't the right thing to do? --RegentsPark (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was in the middle of a survey; it was irrelevant; and it was abuse. But I probably would not have refactored it if an admin had nmot done the same thing to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. You're saying that an admin refactored your talk page comments in the recent past of your refactoring? Regardless, you should turn the other cheek rather than hit out at a third (or was it the same) party! Still, you sound reasonably penitent and, since that's the going requirement for unblocking, I'm going to unblock you. This is probably totally unwarranted advice, but you should seriously consider taking some time off if you can't wait a mere eight days to get back to wikipedia! --RegentsPark (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it was an article talk page - a different one than the irrelevant abuse; I could identify the article (I know it was one of two), but it's not really relevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I just noticed that your unblock request was turned down by another admin. But I did say I'll unblock you so I'll take the flak on this (plus, I was 'reviewing the request'). --RegentsPark (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; I'll probably confine myself to housekeeping edits for the next few weeks anyway. Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So they issue a 1-month block, and then rescind it when it's nearly 3/4 completed already. There's nothing like fast action, eh? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I asked for it today, UTC. I decided I was returning, that I wanted the unblock on my record, and that I was tired of consulting Wikipedia and not being able to gnome articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. So instead of socking, as many others have done in the past, you followed procedure and made a request. I wonder if there's a "by the book" barnstar? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Turpan, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Test

I have IE 6. This is a test to see whether I have any problems editing and saving the entire page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no problem. It took a little while to save, but it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

well, ugh

While I have no interest in passing judgment on whether or not you behaved like a courtier of the Sun King, I can't seem to refrain from remarking that I still find civility charges bogus in almost every instance, except when the user bringing charges is beyond reproach in the dialogue. I find it hard to stomach that editors can be blocked for rudeness, even when that rudeness is directed at trying to obtain high-quality and useful content, but there's no recourse I can find against users (one cannot call them editors) who continually contribute copy full of grammatical and spelling errors or so abstruse it serves no reader's purpose. WP:COMPETENCE, we note, is relegated to an essay, a thing merely wished for, while WP:CIVILITY is the law of the land. "Avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible" — as if others' mental states are my responsibility, or as if others try to avoid upsetting me — lack of intellectual integrity being far more upsetting to me than lapses of (faux) courtesy.

I'm quite certain that eventually all editors who contribute from a position of disinterested scholarship will be driven away. Then WP will be safe for passive-aggressives who seek to control the "correct" views the encyclopedia should present. I've not at all looked into the right and wrong of your current case; I'm just commenting in general, about my own growing disinclination to edit. When a user repeatedly demonstrates that he's beyond the reach of reason, that he seeks only to impose his preconceived notions or POV on the article, when he clings to ignorance like a life raft painted with smiley faces, what mortal purpose is served by pretending such a person is acting in "good faith?" What does "good faith" mean, then? Is the person who refuses to suffer fools not the one acting in good faith — that faith being a pledge to present high-quality content in accordance with WP policies and guidelines? I've said it before and I'll say it again: why on earth should WP talk pages be more "civil" (in the sense that a Stepford wife is civil) than the editorial pages of stodgy mainstream newspapers such as the NYT and the WSJ? I fear I have too little desire to linger in a place where competence is optional. (Again, not saying this applies to any of your recent opponents — I haven't read those discussions.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy re civility. Just a drive-by endorsement. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA

I don't think you'll be back from exile in time, nor do I really know whether you care about such things, but I thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads. FYI, at least. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Welcome back. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Size of your talkpage

Hi. Now that you're unblocked, could you please archive at least 3/4 of the content here? I am on a fast cable connection, and it takes between 40 and 55 seconds for this page to load. I shudder to think how difficult it is for anyone with a slower connection. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Turpan - Turks/ Turkish/ Turkic

Hi Pmanderson. I am writing to you and Rjanag as the two people I see most involved with the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpan. I believe it is against the 'rules' to 'lobby' other editors, but that is not what I am doing and I am doing this openly. A user has deleted the reference to the name Turpan in Turkish, stating that it has nothing to do with Turkey/ Turks/ Turkish. I pointed out that according to the article it does indeed. The user then went back to the article and removed all references to Turkish and replaced them with Turkic. I am not an expert on the subject, so, even though I know what the differences are between Turkish and Turkic, I am not in a position to judge in this speciifc case. I therefore am bringing it to the attention of the two of you. Best regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I've just recently noticed that you added me here. Thanks :) If you enjoyed that page, you may also enjoy this. Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton (2)

I see no good reason to do a blanket revert of this edit and my edit. Please be more specific than "MOScruft"; I know you have a rather poor opinion of the MOS, but that doesn't give you license to revert on a whim. If you think WP:DASH or any other part of the MOS should be changed or removed; feel free to propose a change at WT:MOS. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. While I'm here, can I exhort you to archive your talk page? It takes a while to load, and its size is quite off-putting to editors who wish to communicate with you. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (small clarification)

Thank you for your kind comment. Please note that the topic ban in question is not indefinite; rather it is long term fixed duration (12 months following a 3 month block, so 15 months starting late last December and ending late next March). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

derisive comments

I've made this request at the article talk page[33], you continued[34], so I'm bringing it here to your talk page.

Please focus your derisive comments [35][36], if they must be derisive at all, at content and arguments, not on the person making the comments and arguments with which you disagree. All of the following are examples of comments about a person rather than about what the person is saying:

• "Born2cycle disagrees with policy ..."
• "Born2cycle doesn't disagree with policy ... Right."
• "he just believes..."

I suggest all of this violates WP:CIVIL which states:

Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict.

Your comments certainly feel disrespectful, rude and seem disruptive to me. Thank you for taking this under consideration. I sincerely hope it ends here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not intend to hurt you - and I will consider if I should rephrase.

On the other hand, you are feeling not derision towards you, but dismissal of your argument. You do disagree with WP:AT; you have made several singlehanded efforts to rephrase it - bullying those of us who value consistency. Your first post says only that the article title is not consistent with what you would like policy to be; the second has more substance - but I do not want to hog the discussion by replying to it. Nevertheless, your preferences are not policy, and you really should not claim they are. If enough people agreed with them, they would become policy - but we are not a crystal ball. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion coherent, in one place, okay? When the subject of a sentence is a person's name, or personal pronouns like "you" or "he", those are statements about the person rather than about the comments or arguments that person is making. I suggest, at least in article talk space, to avoid forming sentences whose subject is an editor's name or a personal pronoun reference to an editor.

Since you keep repeating this claim, please state what you believe my disagreement with WP:AT to be, and what exactly I said that caused you to believe this. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple; you are a quaternarian. You disagree that there are five main parinciples; you believe there are only four; you have edited AP:AT to remove or downplay the fifth. Fine; it has no value to you; but others disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• What did I write that causes you to believe that I disagree there are five main principles?
• What did I write that causes you to believe that I believe there are only four?
• Where have I edited WP:AT to remove the fifth?
• How does that edit downplay the fifth?
• What did I write that causes you to believe it has "no value" to me?

As if throwing your opinions around about an editor and what he does or does not believe is not enough, you won't or can't even back up your accusations with the actual words that supposedly support what you're claiming. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well, to remove, downplay, weaken, or otherwise eviscerate Consistency. Let who will search the history of WP:AT and its talk page, and she will find all those things.

But I do not believe that a discussion with a claim that that edit does not downplay consistency serves any useful purpose - and this talk page is long enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You're bringing up baggage from who knows when? I can't even remember what I may have proposed or tried to change in the past. How would any of that be relevant in an RM discussion today? Why do you dredge up this stuff? To what end, except to disparage, disrespect and dismiss the person making the argument with which you disagree? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To show to third parties that the argument is unsound - in part because it represents a long-standing and idiosyncratic opinion. The assumption here that I - or anyone - would bother to edit Wikipedia to disparage and disrespect a single editor is nonsense. I do, however, view his arguments as fallacious and potentially damaging; I did therefore edit to prevent his arguments from doing harm. In short, it's not you; it never has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack does not show to anyone that the argument is unsound. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is one reason I did not make one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that the person making the argument disagrees with policy says nothing about the person's argument, and is a statement exclusively about the person making the argument. That's an ad hominem attack, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's bad enough inventing a grievance. Now you are supporting it with evident falsehood. Your position on the policy matters in two ways:

1. The claim that the name change is required by policy is false; it is required by the policy you would prefer - either state is consistent with existing policy.
2. Arguments that the policy should be changed do not belong at Talk:Louis XIV of France; they belong at WT:AT, where they have been routinely unsuccessful, since only you (and sometimes PBS) support them.

As I said, I will consider whether I want to rephrase; but this persistent claim that I have attacked you when I have not is not conducive to the result you ask for.

If this conversation continues, I will give it a page of its own; it should not be on this talk page, which is for novel communications. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, make unsubstantiated claims and then threaten to hide the whole embarrassing thing if it "continues".

1. Please cite the exact words of mine which you interpret as a "claim that the name change is required by policy".
2. Other than the words I posted in the context of defending against your baseless accusation that I disagreed with policy, please cite the exact words of mine from Talk:Louis XIV of France that you interpret to be "Arguments that the policy should be changed".

If you can't cite the exact words and explain why you interpreted them to mean this, what are you going on about? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Solely for the record: [37] --RegentsPark (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• This too solely for the record (another editor agrees the statement in question was a personal attack): [38]. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply saying an editor disagrees with policy is not a personal, ad hominem attack. Saying an editor stupidly disagrees with policy is a personal attack. Agreement or disagreement is not a negative personal trait. Being stupid is a negative personal trait. None of the three examples given at the top of this section are personal attacks, IMHO. Taivo (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Taivo disgrees with policy against personal attacks, that's fine, but the rest of us don't.

So, even if the sarcasm in my statement in this context was not obvious, that would not be a personal attack, and perfectly acceptable for me to say in this discussion? My point is that context matters. If you had just said something that expressed clear disagreement with WP:NPA, my statement would not be a personal attack. But since you said nothing of the sort, it was a personal attack, because the only purpose here (if the purpose was not to make this point sarcastically, which of course it is) to make this statement in this context would be to disparage you and encourage the dismissal of your argument by extension. And that was the only purpose of PMA's comments about me in the context in which they were made. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, "Taivo disagrees, fine, but not the rest of us," would not be an overly provocative way to express yourself. I don't know if you realize it, but Taivo is a user who has had strenuous disagreements with Pmanderson, and, I believe, has questioned Pma's adherence to the civility policies. So I'd give some extra weight to Taivo's opinion that you may be making too much of the treatment you've encountered. Wareh (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree your watered-down version would not be a provocative attack. But the watering down by omitting the false allegation aspect of the statement indicates you might be missing the point. Perhaps if I note your allegiance to Nazism it will be more clear. Anyway, in case I'm the one missing something, I've asked for clarification here as was suggested by admin User:RegentsPark.[39] --Born2cycle (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's comments were not personal attacks — personal attacks are stronger — but their tone was dismissing. Use of the third person discourages the opponent from responding. Clearly stating the disagreement and allowing the person to respond is better. Only an unreasonable person should be excluded from conversation, but Born2cycle had not proven to be unreasonable. — Eru·tuon 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My claim is that the statement is a violation of WP:CIVIL (as originally stated at the top of this section), but not strong enough to be a violation of WP:NPA. That is, it's a "personal attack", but not a Personal Attack. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a claim that WP:CIVIL prohibits mentioning Born2Cycle in criticizing his post. This is another misreading.

As for the third person, I use it because I find it more civil, if perhaps less cordial, that the second person: my honourable colleague did thus-and-so is more civil than you done it. If someone specifically asks me to change to the second person, that's different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Pmanderson, that first paragraph is a misreading of what I said. Your comments in question, both to Kotniski as well as to me, were not worded as criticisms of an editors posts, they were worded as criticisms of the editor. Note that here I am criticizing what you said in your post, am mentioning you in this post, but this is not a criticism of you so this is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. If you're not sure whether a given criticism is about a person or a post, look at the grammatical subject of the sentence in question; that will tell you 99% of the time. When in doubt, reword so that the subject is not the person. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The preferences expressed in this post are noted; that the grammatical claim if you're not sure whether a given criticism is about a person or a post, look at the grammatical subject of the sentence in question; that will tell you 99% of the time is an absurdity does not make it any the less the preference of its author. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry — I was not clear. The problem is not the use of a third person form. The problem is making a statement about a person (third person) without explaining to the person (second person) how the statement is true. Even if the statement you make seems obvious to you, it may still not be obvious to the person in question. In this case, you did not explain to Born2cycle how he/she "disagrees with policy", so your statement was taken as a pejorative remark without basis. — Eru·tuon 23:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I doubt that applies. The edit history of WP:AT will show plenty of edits by Born2cycle (and PBS for other reasons) attempting to change the policy on the issues here in question; consensus has never supported them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What does the edit history of WP:AT or of an uninvolved editor like PBS have to do with comments I made at Talk:Louis XIV of France? And if edits to WP:AT constitute basis for disagreement with policy worthy of mentioning in a discussion like this, I suggest a mirror check. At most, bold attempts to change policy wording in the past is evidence of just that: attempts to change policy wording. It's not at all evidence of disagreement with existing policy, which is what was clearly implied by the statement about disagreeing with policy. How my initial comment was understood to misrepresent policy has still not been explained. Again, I think all this shows that the purpose of the comments was solely to disparage the person, which makes it contrary to WP:CIVIL, at the least. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And the importance of providing basis when making such comments is precisely because there could easily be a misunderstanding, as was apparently the case here. How PMA understood what he did from what I wrote, as he has finally explained[40], is beyond me, because it has nothing at all to do with what I meant.[41] --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A post (by this same author) claims even as he types here that the policy is what he has attempted to change it to. If any third party can suggest a more parliamentary word than "misrepresentation", I will glad to adopt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think that proves with respect to the comment I made that you characterized as a misrepresentation of policy? What exactly did I say that you thought was a misrepresentation, and how was it a misrepresentation? More importantly, why would you make such an accusation in the first place without explaining what and how at the same time? Making such an accusation without the accompanying explanation is uncivil, which is Eru's point, as I understand it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered that question, here and at the article talk page. This is harassment; please stay off my talk page, unless you have something novel to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(Uninvolved admin comment)

I was about to suggest that the two of you end the conversation, as it appears you simply don't agree.

This is not worth escalating, and wasn't worth this much talking at each other. I recommend trying to avoid each other for a while.

Born2cycle, please don't bother PMA on his talk page here on this topic again, per his request above. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To ODB or not to ODB?

"We are not governed by the eccentricities of one reference". We are also not governed by the eccentricities of one editor. Obviously a Classical Dictionary would favour the latinized form, but Planoudes was a Byzantine, and that literature has increasingly and overwhelmingly adopted the ODB standard for the past 20 years. We have had this discussion too many times now. Aside from your own dislike, there is no evidence that the most pertinent, i.e. the Byzantinist, scholarship prefers latinized forms. Wikipedia has, rightly or wrongly, de facto adopted the ODB standard for some years now, and this covers thousands of Byzantine-related articles. If you want to change the practice, you know the proper way: open an RfC. Until you do that and until a decision in favour of latinized forms has been reached, I would appreciate it if you ceased disrupting the project just to make a point of resisting the evil ODB and fighting for the Truth. Next time you do this sort of unilateral move, I will go to ANI. Regards, Constantine ✍ 09:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"The one thing we must avoid is a single editor attempting to impose his POV on all articles, which is why I have not done so, and do not intend to.". I am glad to hear that. If you want to move an article because it can be demonstrated that its English usage is overwhelmingly in favour of one form, as Wareh demonstrated for Planudes, then OK. Moving an article because you prefer latinized form and find the others ugly or eccentric, in other forms on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, is another matter. Whether you like it or not, Haldon, Whittow, Cameron, Laiou, Angold, Magdalino, Cameron, and yes, even Judith Herrin, seem to use ODB forms in their published books and papers. I respect your knowledge, but the way you have been going about making your point is not suited to an admin. Constantine ✍ 07:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Annals

If you ever find yourself in need of a break — if, say, you suddenly realize that the mask of the courtier is about to slip and you need to get away now — I just learned that the article Annals has no section on antiquity. A little paragraph on the annalistic tradition at Rome is not something I care to do at the moment, and there are dozens of items on my to-do list that excite me more. Just thought I'd mention it, in case it was something you'd care to dash off. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the goods are at Annalists, but Annals still could use a section with a "Main article" note. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

An edit you made back in March is the subject of a current discussion. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/November#US neighborhoods.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

invite to discuss Kosovo geographic names

I am working on a list of issue and a stragtegy for the names of places in kosovo , User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages I would like to invite you to take part and comment, have seen your activity of kosovo articles in the past. Thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganges/Ganga

Hey,

At Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_29#.22Common_Name.22_by_population.2C_or_by_universality.3F you made the comment, "I think this could be best addressed by adding something like especially when local usage is itself divided, we do not necessarily follow the majority or plurality of local English usage against the rest of the English-speaking world: Ganges, not Ganga. to our section on National varieties of English." I didn't see that until just now, as I was watching the other talk page. Anyway, there is now a proposed move at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga by someone making arguments like 'because we use pinyin for Chinese names, we have to use Ganga'. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warnimg

(I know, don't template the regulars, but....)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Article titles. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreement!

It's nice to be in agreement about something!

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Philippus Arabs

Please trust me (or your dictionary) on that: it's a Latin word. Trigaranus (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, think I see what your problem was. Trigaranus (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Era-straddling entities

Did you notice this message? (Your talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Augustus is an example of ambiguity, but not of the problem under discussion; indeed, calling Augustus a first-century Emperor would be an ingenious way of dealing with that instance. So I'll stick with Plotinus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Warn

Template:Warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

• News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

• In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Wikipedia; Al Jazeera interview; be like Wikipedia

• GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

• WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

• WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

• Features and admins: Birds and insects

• Arbitration report: New case: World War II

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversions on 39th Century BC

Why do you keep reverting this? I only noticed LutherVinci on WP:RFPP, I have no general interest in this article, but I suggested he take some form of dispute resolution. That came back saying these figures should appear in a myths section - which seems totally sensible. Whether LutherVinci is a creationist is irrelevant, this isn't the evolution article and his points he's made here are reasonable. There is as much validity in the characters of the Bible as any other religious book or any other countries myths and legends and like other myths and legends it is perfectly possible that the characters in the bible actually existed, talking to god aside. Do we really need to have further dispute resolution on such a short article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury

Hi, Looking at the history of Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury it appears you were involved in a dispute about the accuracy or neutrality of the article back in June. I'm working my way through the Somerset wikiproject cleanup listing where the article appears because of the banners. Do you feel the dispute is resolved? If so can the banners be removed? I have tried to start a discussion on this on the Talk page and your contribution would be helpful.— Rod ^talk 09:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

era-tic obsession

Is there a tag that's permissible for use on an article to stop the mischief of era-changing bots? This is in regard to a discussion at the G&R project on what constitutes "substantial reason" for changing an article's original era convention. The article started as a BCE stub, but was BC for three years before botic activity, and I've given a number of reasons why this single article needs to be BC. I thought that such a device had been pointed out to me, but I'm not finding it. I don't want to stop legitimate fixes with an overall stop-bots. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

grammar

Hi there, PMA. My head is spinning, and the co-author and I can't decide. "Each of the candidates is or are? Please see This draft. Tony (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to WP:MOS-JA

I have undone this edit of yours to WP:MOS-JA. It does not make sense to have that specific name last. However, the whole order of preference thing is off to begin with (I'm pretty sure the "official trade name" and "form publicly used on behalf of the person" are identical). The subject's personal preference as to how their name is written in the Roman alphabet should be the first determinator for the title of an article, and that is especially important when deciding how to title articles on people of Japanese descent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not rely on trademarks against usage; that's WP:MOSTRADE; and the reasons there apply equally to persons of Japanese descent and to other persons. What presentable reasons can there be for such a distinction? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. It's the consensus of the Japanese Wikiproject to use the name the subject chooses to be known as in the English speaking world above any other name. Japanese names are a special case because of the various romanization styles used throughout the world that do not comply with the romanization style used on the English Wikipedia—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the "trade name" bit and replaced it with something more accurate to the practice of the project when it comes to names of modern Japanese biographies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop modifying the MOS. You were bold, you were reverted, so stop changing it and discuss it. That's why I started up a thread on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop unilaterally modifying the manual of style because you perceive that it does not fall in line with WP:AT.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring. I've blocked you for considerably less time than Ryulong because Ryulong was just flat reverting, while you were making changes. That said, edits like this [42] are obviously only done to make a point and reflect poorly on you.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe two of my five edits are identical, but no more; the others were alternate possible solutions. The edit expressly complained of was part of a compound edit suggesting one solution: that a page expressing one user's opinions is an essay. (This edit is one of a series attempting to see whether the solution had support elsewhere.) The purpose of blocks is prevention, not punishment - and the page is protected. (I have no further intent to edit it anyway; as long as it is clear that Ryulong's opinions cannot be quoted as consensus, there are enough voices to straighten it out.)

Decline reason:

Clear edit warning, and with the edit mentioned in the block rationale, you're lucky it's only for 12 hours. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I see from 3RR I have also been blocked for being a former admin. While I appreciate the compliment, it's back-handed: I'm not, and this block was the first I heard of the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Ryulong, not you. Jpatokal (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another misreading, then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really.[43] Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Berne-Airport

Hi, we have a discussion about renaming Bern-Airport a final -e, Your advice would be appreciated :) Ngagnebin (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia articles expert-reviewed by Encyclopedia of Life, and more

• In the news: Confusion about Wikileaks continues, Wikipedia vs. Britannica in India, and more

• Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: The community has spoken

• Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS comment

Your recent comment on an MOS discussion about agendas being driven by one or two determined editors, for some reason, reminded me of a possible application when I have trouble coming up for a reason for reversion. "rv new rule." A bit hard to credibly place on the edit summary, unfortunately!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Manual of Style

As noted at the top of the Manual of Style: "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.". There is an ongoing discussion on this issue that has not arrived at any consensus, and the changes you made have not even been proposed for discussion. Please discuss them first before making changes to this guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly tagging article content under active talk page discussion seems nearly the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

Could you please explain your reasoning for repeatedly reinserting them?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Marseilles

I don't want to weigh in on the point at hand, but I can't keep from leaving a side note here. Trogus, whatever Justin made of his 'universal' history, was not only from Mediterranean Gaul, but was a Vocontian. The Vocontii had close relations with Marseilles. Trogus's father was granted citizenship by Pompey, and as you know in the civil war Marseilles remained loyal to Pompey at great cost. Whatever the factual value of Trogus, he must've known what he was talking about in a sort of Herodotean way, that is, in terms of preserving local traditions. Which is not an argument for any particular date, but only … framing. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have some interesting points

Like reading your comments.TCO (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs for edit warring on Marseilles

Both you and Mathsci are blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring.

You were being somewhat more disruptive, but participated more in the talk page. He kept reverting and stopped participating in the talk page.

You've been around long enough to know our policy and community standards on this. You were way over the line.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please actually examine my edits in the last 24 hours. I added tags; on being informed that this was improper until there was irremediable dispute, I added considerable novel material; when this was challenged, I reworded and added a source; when I was exactly reverted, I added tags where the sources did not, and do not, support the source - with comments. One revert (which was mistaken; but what is one to do when even the symptoms of dispute are wiped away?), one partial revert, and much normal editing, all justified on talk. If this is revert-warring, all normal editing in the presence of opposition is revert-warring.

Decline reason:

We don't care why you were edit warring. But you were indeed edit warring. I see you've learned nothing from your previous blocks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was instructed what to by SlimVirgin: Find new sources; add them to the article; discuss when opposed; and not to tag until I had met irreconcilable opposition. I did exactly that; it's all on the talk page; I was met with an undiscussed and complete reversion; and I added tags after several hours of complete silence. If this is edit-warring, all editing is edit-warring. I am prepared, if my colleagues think it is advisable, to stay away from the article for two days; I would have done that at the asking. (But nobody asks anymore.)

Decline reason:

Nobody asks you not to edit war anymore because you've been blocked for it so many times that you obviously know you shouldn't be doing it, yet you do it anyway. In this admins opinion 48 hours is far to lenient for someone with such a history. You have managed to talk your way out of edit-warring related blocks before, I for one am not going for it this time. As to the rest of your request you may want to review WP:NOTTHEM when posting any future unblock requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In short, I'm blocked for edit-warring whether I have or not. Thanks, much.
  • I can't archive this page until I am unblocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Can we archive it for you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I should prefer not.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

PMA, to avoid blocks in the future you might consider avoiding behavior that others, including admins, may see as "edit warring" rather than only avoiding behavior which you consider to be "edit warring". Just a suggestion... take it or leave it, but I sincerely hope you take this to heart because I know you have much to offer. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I complied, to the letter, with the recommendations of Newyorkbrad and SlimVirgin. You then decried the result as edit-warring - and none of these admins seems to have looked at what actually happened. That leaves me little room to edit article space at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Once someone has accumulated several blocks it seems to me that he or she is effectively "on parole" and might be expected, perhaps unconsciously and not intentionally, to meet a higher standard of behavior than is normally tolerated of editors, perhaps even a higher standard than merely meeting the letter of what other admins suggest.

In short, once you're in a situation with any kind of conflict with someone, you really have to walk on egg shells, and that probably includes avoiding the relevant article content entirely until agreement with that person is achieved on talk pages. But that's probably decent advice for anyone not "on parole" as well. Perhaps a good explanation for your block history is your apparent tendency to continue article space editing (reverts, "well sourced" edits, etc.) when conflicts do arise. If in those situations you stopped touching the article and instead focused on genuinely trying to resolve the conflict, including showing respect for what the other is saying (right or wrong), your contributions would probably be even more valuable. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If SV and NYB told you to jump off a bride, would you do that? How about only 4.5 days after you were just punished for jumping off a bridge? Does it occur to you that you misread the statement to fit what you wanted to see (cf. SV's interpretation of her words), but that you shouldn't have edit warred even if you were instructed to do so by an administrator? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a novel interpretation of our customs. Adding dispute tags (and walking away, which I was going to do after one more attempt based on the best English sources I could find) is generally regarded as the alternative to edit-warring; suppressing dispute tags (when there is a genuine dispute, as there is here; I am pleased to see that Akhilleus confirms my reading of Thucydides) is generally regarded as bad faith.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately ignoring context, PM. The context is that your position in the RM discussion was in disagreement with Mathsci [44]. It was only after the conflict was well established did you make your first edit to the article page, adding the POV-TITLE tag. Do you not see how that escalates the conflict? That behavior is opposite of seeking consensus. Subsequent edits have to be evaluated in the context of an escalating conflict as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was only after that conflict that I read the article through and observed that it made claims which seemed dubious and which its sources did not support. This seemed a way to do something useful, while waiting to see if the RM moved the article; and if the article were called Mars instead of Marseille, the sourcing would be just as bad; I had actually hoped it would reduce conflict by transferring the field to something where they were verifiable on-line sources instead of nationalist opinions (Thucydides is online, and I linked to his text.)

To say otherwise is to value the unwritten and arbitrarily enforced rules of a social club above Verifiability and No Original Research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

advice from a former troll

When the moderators ban you, just take it. It's more rebelliously manly.  :) TCO (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, O f*rm*r tr*ll. But I still hope that Wikipedia can be saved from the cool kids and made reasonably reliable. Some-body else may have to do it; but if I can inspire the effort, so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please archive this page

You've been asked multiple times to archive this page. The last time you said you couldn't because you were blocked [45]. Someone offered to archive for you but you didn't respond. You're currently unblocked... how about archiving now? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to look a bit like harassment of this user. Why not take a step back before you go way too far? Deb (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a general "resistance is futile" campaign against this user. The length of a user's talk page is obviously of pressing importance to the WP project. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carmel-by-the-Sea move

Hi. I notice you moved Carmel-by-the-Sea to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California at 16:23.[46] What I find strange, is that you decided to start a move request discussion about your move at 16:28.[47] Is there a reason you did not wait for the move request discussion before enforcing your preferred title? Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for move-warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not preventative; this is punitive. In order for any uninvolved admin to prevent me from doing something, all they have to do is ask; something nobody has tried. (Viriditas' involvement (admin or non-admin) can be seen from this diff about Carmel) The move request at Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea is now chaos; I set it up to ask a simple question about two alternative; Viriditas' move to a third alternative has left it entirely unclear what Support and Oppose mean.

Decline reason:

You were move-warring by repeating an undone controversial move. You should not do this, even without being asked to not to do it. Besides, in his first move back, Viriditas did ask you to stop ("Discuss the move request /before/ you move the article unilaterally"), but nonetheles you moved the article to your preferred name a second time. The block is therefore required to prevent you from continued move-warring.  Sandstein  06:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• "...left it entirely unclear what Support and Oppose mean.". I don't see what's unclear about it, much less "entirely unclear". The proposal in question has always been about moving the article to Carmel, California. All that has changed is whether it's being moved from Carmel-by-the-Sea or from Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. So Support has always meant "Support this article → Carmel, California", and Oppose has always meant, "don't move". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, at least two of the !votes are discussing whether to add California back; that's a second issue, independent of whether to use the common name of Carmel or its official multi-hyphened one - which makes four possibilities, all logically defensible, not just the original title and the proposed one. Since the move proposal discusses only the former issue, the latter will add confusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't have any problem understanding the position of anyone who has participated so far. Do you? It's not uncommon for consensus-supported alternatives to emerge out of these discussions. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, to start with the most obvious: You may understand my own position, because you've seen it in greater detail; but nobody without that advantage is likely to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restriction concerning you

I have made a proposal concerning you at WP:ANI#Proposed community restriction concerning Pmanderson. Please make any statement you wish to make below and use {{helpme}} to ask that it be copied to that discussion.  Sandstein  07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC) {{helpme}} Please post the following in response to Sandstein's poll above:

Any uninvolved admin can get me to abstain from any article, talk page, or move at any time: all they need do is ask me (something which has not been tried during the current issues). I would appreciate a statement of the reasons, so I can explain if I think the request unreasonable. I can certainly err, and welcome any better or calmer judgment.

Therefore this request is unnecessary for prevention. (The condition that I propose only one RM in a day seems particularly odd; I have never engaged in wave moves; surely, this clause could be left until there is occasion for it.) As for the suggestion below, what is this if not punitive? But blocks and restrictions should be preventative, not punitive.

Furthermore, RM is always open to those who disagree with me on any move: I see that the question of Michael Attaliates has come up, for example. I have always and repeatedly expressed willingness to abide by any RM to move it back (and not stymie proceedings with an oppose; one such offer is on the talk page) - but those who want to spell it with two es are not content with this; they must have special assistance.

As for the claims that I cannot engage in civil discussion: see the project on which I would be engaged if not blocked: Talk:Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury.

I am relieved, on the whole, to see that there are so few who object to an editor with as many edits as I have - and so few of those who are not indeed objecting to my failure to submit to their POV (those who want details should enquire on my talk page); I must thank those who have chosen to support me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Posted, as requested.  Chzz  ►  23:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"I would appreciate a statement of the reasons, so I can explain if I think the request unreasonable.". I believe the statement of the reasons was given already:

"Pmanderson's mile-long block log shows many naming-related blocks since 2006, and the user does not seem to have learned how to resolve naming disagreements in a collegial and disciplined manner."

How I understand this is that the restriction concerning page moves is being proposed because you do "not seem to have learned how to resolve naming disagreements in a collegial and disciplined manner". Hope that helps.

By the way, I don't think anyone seeks to have you "submit to their POV". I, for one, simply seek to have you behave in "a collegial and disciplined manner", which includes being civil and respectful even towards those with whom you have a different POV. I hope you realize there are ways to express disagreement with someone with a different POV in a civil manner without "submitting to their POV". Doing things with little if any apparent reason other than to annoy those with a different POV [48] (note your controversial/unilateral move of Carmel-by-the-Sea occurs exactly 16 minutes after I coincidentally mentioned its existence in a reply-comment to you [49]), or to prove a point, is not among them. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken on several points.

• However long my block log (and almost half of it is unblocks), that does not establish whether any particular action of mine is wrong.
• There are certainly ways to express disagreement civilly without submitting to a POV; but there are a certain percentage of editors who do not admit that there is a difference. They therefore complain of incivility, when what they mean is "X has dared to disagree with the Sacred Truth" (these are somewhere between 1 and 5% of Wikipedia editors); since any tactic is justified in getting the Sacred Truth into Wikipedia, they are acting in good faith, at least in one sense: they are acting for the Higher Good.
• Admins who believe that civility is the highest good of Wikipedia - higher therefore than Verifiability or Neutrality - are boluntary tools for such people. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• So what is the upshot here? I do in case plan to stay with RM for a while, since some of those who advise it are respectable editors, but there does not seem to be a decision behind the link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No-one has closed the discussion yet - probably because it died once it was removed from the main ANI page. I will ask back on the main ANI page for someone to review it and update you as well. On the other matter raised recently, would you be willing to archive your talk page so it is a reasonable length? It does take a while to load, and over 2 years and 548 talk page sections is a tad excessive. Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I could be in error, but I think your talkpage needs archiving. GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)