User talk:Aetheling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Very useful Wikipedia articles[edit]

Stanley Cobb[edit]

Thanks for supplying the info on Sidney Cobb. I assume you are related and would be interested in your thoughts on this short article – any mistakes? I've also written articles on Frederic A. Gibbs and William G. Lennox. Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No mistakes so far. I am looking through family archives for a photo. — Aetheling 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
How nice to find a family connection here on Wikipedia! A photo would indeed be delightful. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wolfowitz[edit]

I'm sorry you felt my edit of Paul Wolfowitz was Vandalism, I however do not feel it was. I noticed some other articles on living persons had their commonly used nicknames put with their name and decided to be bold and add it to his. Also I would appreciate it if you would sign your posts on my talk page next time.

  • To add a nickname to a biography of a living person, I recommend adding a complete sentence, like this: "Within the World Bank, Wolfowitz is known as 'The Prez'." Then, if possible, cite a public document in which this nickname is used. That way everyone will understand that this is not simply vandalism. If I might make a further suggestion: your edits will be taken more seriously if you first register with Wikipedia. Your talk page is actually the talk page for an IP address, not for you personally (unless you rent that particular IP address). —Aetheling 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why reverted[edit]

The numbers you put into economics of new nuclear power plants on return on energy were taken out, solely because they weren't in the cited source. If you have a good source, please put them and the source back in. Simesa 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. I hope my explanation made sense to everyone. —Aetheling 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Disinhibited attachment disorder[edit]

Do you think this should be merged with RAD with a redirect as in general both forms get called RAD even if under ICD that's not accurate.

The RAD article is currently being peer reviewed (see top of talkpage) after getting GA, with a view to achieving FAC. Any help gratefully recieved. The peer reviewers said the See Also section should only contain articles not already linked in the text. Personally I like to have them all in one place in See Also, but I suppose it depends on how much one is prepared to compromise for the sake of a gong. 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the encouragement! The most difficult thing is that people keep giving me very firm but different instructions on how to do refs but copyediting type work doesn't seem to come naturally to me. I tried to emphasise the ICD a little more by sticking it first when mentioning the two - but most of the research seems to be done in the USA and the proposals seem to revolve around rewriting DSM. Nobody has ever heard of 'DAD'. They just use 'RAD' for both. Regarding getting FAC; I'm assuming that the banned sockmaster who used to control all the articles with his 6 socks will try to reappear at some point and I feel that if the attachment related articles have reached FAC they may be better protected because FAC reviews include reviewing content so in theory it may be less acceptable to corrupt them to promote individual therapies and non-mainstream theories. Its a bit of a learning curve though.Fainites barley 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way - this is what SandyGeorgia said on See Also's - and she should know ! - "Ideally, the See also section is minimized in an FA-quality article. Items should be worked into the text if relevant, and need not be repeated in See also if they're already in the text." Fainites barley 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There you are look ! [1] I'm also in trouble for not knowing the difference between endashes and hyphens - but my laptop only does one sort of little line. Fainites barley 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To me a mackintosh is something to keep the rain out (though not very well). I only have - or _ . Sometimes the first one comes up shorter than others in what appears to be a random fashion. Fainites barley 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If only someone had told me weeks ago. The other thing I can't find is a sort of ;amp thing that people put in instead of ampersands. Fainites barley 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

deMause[edit]

I have replied to your great input in Talk:Lloyd_deMause.

In that talk page you state:

  • "It seems to me that deMause has contributed ideas to the social sciences in two distinct areas: (a) the frequency and severity of child abuse in European history, and (b) the fantasy-life of nations. The second of these two areas is distinctly speculative and non-scientific, and I have little use or respect for it. The first, on the other hand, contains original and important scientific hypotheses that someday will be verifiable with empirical data."

It seems that we share exactly the same pov about deMause! I also dislike psychoanalysis. In fact, I'm a fan of psychoanalysis' greatest critic, Jeffrey Masson.

Just a minor observation. DeMause didn't publish his seminal monograph in 1978 but in 1974.

Since you are professional matemathician, perhaps you might be interested to add the data you placed in the deMause's talk page into the Journal of Psychohistory article? I already copied and pasted some of the info you provided us to that article's talk page as well as in talk:Psychohistory

Cheers!

Cesar Tort 22:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

suggestion: dont get carried away by your enthusiasm. It will interfere with the proper NPOV expansion of the article. In history, "speculative and non-scientific" is a valid part of the subject. DGG (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder (again)[edit]

Hi. I've put this up for FAC, here [2] According to SandyGeorgia I have to find people to review it. You're the only Psychologist I know! Would you mind awfully adding your twopennorth. Thanks. Fainites barley 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also asked Matisse on SandyGeorgia's advice. Then I went to the list of psychologists at the Project and asked a psychologist called Doczilla. I also left a message at the neuroscience project. The trouble is, even alot of psychologists don't really know that much about attachment, let alone RAD. The Psychology Project seems pretty moribund. I'll go through the list of psychologists and see if any of them have put down Child Development as an interest. Thanks. Fainites barley 08:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Aethling.Fainites barley 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Got the little star! Many thanks for your timely and comprehensive support. Fainites barley 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea[edit]

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

psychohistory & psychoanalysis[edit]

Hi Aetheling, I agree with you. Psychoanalysis is no longer credible. In 2006 I used to edit one of the articles of psychoanalysis' main critics: Jeffrey Masson. I've not edited that article for a while but Masson is in fact one of my personal heroes. Which academic area do you think would be suitable for anyone interested in creating a post- (i.e., non-psychoanalytic) approach to psychohistory? Take a look at the article I'm starting to edit: Infanticide. Regards :) Cesar Tort 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Jeffrey Masson is one of my heroes too, though I don't have such a bleak view of psychiatry. I favor an approach to psychohistory from the perspective of modern trauma theory, with a heavy emphasis on (a) the effects of early trauma on the developing brain, especially the amygdala and hippocampus, (b) the effects of such brain damage on the psyches of growing adolescents, (c) the treatment by society of adolescents who act out, or dissociate, or are hyperactive, or any of the other effects of abuse, and (d) the effects on society of having a large fraction of the population grow up with PTSD or some of the other dissociative conditions, and insecure forms of attachment. Many of my ideas are spelled out briefly in this essay: The Persistence of War. — Aetheling (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

Request for Peer Review help[edit]

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases submitted to peer review[edit]

Hi. I found your name at Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#Society_and_social_sciences and thought I'd let you know that I've submitted List of United States Supreme Court cases (formerly Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases) for peer review here and thought you might like to comment. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It was brought to my attention that I asked too many people to comment. Looks like you're off the hook if you want to be.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

requested PR[edit]

Hi Aetheling,

I noticed your name here.

I have requested a peer-review on Satanic Ritual Abuse. I would be much interested if you could present your views on the present state of the article. Here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Satanic ritual abuse/archive1

This is one of the subjects in which I disagree with deMause. I do believe that if he and the psychohistorians got rid of this stuff and accepted a rigorous epidemiological approach to PH, the field could get much more attention.

Regards,

Cesar Tort 20:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and a request[edit]

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request for the article about Igor Panarin[edit]

It'd be a honour for me to have a peer review of this article by you. Some of your fields of interest intersect with his, so it may be interesting to you. Any suggestions welcome. Thank you! --Лъчезар (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Statistics[edit]

Welcome to WikiProject Statistics

I noticed you recently added yourself to the list of participants, and I wanted to welcome you to the project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on statistics-related articles. You may like to add the project's userbox to your user page: {{User WikiProject Statistics}}. We also have a statistics portal that's worth a visit.

Here are some suggested activities that you may consider tackling.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. —G716 <T·C> 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Vandalism studies[edit]

I saw your recent study and I thought you might be interested in restarting Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies (if you have the time). Remember (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I can help bring the project back to life, but I work slowly. I'll see what I can do, beginning in July. —Aetheling (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
Excellent!Remember (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
May I move your report to a Signpost subpage and put it in this week's issue?--ragesoss (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A. S. Cairncross[edit]

Ah! (slaps head) You're right. I do have the book but for some reason karma was punishing me, and I apparently was thinking of Peter Alexander while doing the edit.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for Vandalism Study[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For spending the time to collect, analyze, and summarize the data for your Study of vandalism survival times, I hereby award you this barnstar! I'm not a mathematician, but I know enough to appreciate what kind of work goes into a report like that. The insight it will provide to the community will be valuable. Excellent work! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for study of page creations[edit]

I saw your analysis and study of vandalism in the signpost, which was very useful, however, I notice that the Wiki has new pages created at very fast times, just by seeing the main page, I noted that there was a greater number of articles in the main page article count than the main page in another tab that I have opened five minutes earlier, I believe this is very curious, and because I lack your skills, I hope that you can help me to analyse the page creation rate and how useful the newly created pages are, thank you. Btzkillerv (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)[edit]

Sociology ProjectNews • April 2010

The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call.

In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • signed Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mahalanobis[edit]

Aetheling, could you please discuss your recent change to Mahalanobis distance at Talk:Mahalanobis_distance#Probability_or_likelihood? --Pot (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What about your plans to write something about maximum likelihood in the article about Mahalanobis distance? --Pot (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

circumference talk page[edit]

I also appended my comment ritgh below yours not going to tell you what it is you'll have to go see for your self its on the talk page of the circumference atricle ?is it against the rule to post at the top? Ill look for your answere on this page.Whats inside the light bulb? (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • FYI I reverted the edit that he's talking about - vandalistic nonsense. He's now on a level 3 warning for persistent vandalism of Circumference. andy (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I wish I understood why the Circumference page in particular attracts so many nuts and crackpots. Aetheling (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)[edit]

Sociology ProjectNews • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006

The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out!

According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004.

On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv.

Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that!

And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too?

In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400).

We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY!

Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more.

Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010).

If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar.

As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

Authored by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

ASA Panel?[edit]

Hi, I saw on WikiProject Sociology that you will be participating as a panelist in the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. I am a Wikimedia Foundation staff member currently working on the Public Policy Initiative, in which we're working with professors at universities across the country to incorporate Wikipedia-editing into the classroom as a teaching tool. I also studied sociology at UC Berkeley and like to think of myself as a sociologist (at least at heart), and have gone to ASA annual meetings before and have some connections in the sociology academic world. I would like to help out in any way I can. For example: I would love to help out as a panelist (or co-panelist), a presenter, an exhibitor, etc. Which panel will you be sitting on and is your topic related at all to the topic of using Wikipedia as teaching tool? I am definitely interested in collaborating with you on that too if it is. Please let me know. Thanks! Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can even try to organize/propose a panel or roundtable on the topic of Wikipedia's role in academia, technology's role in academia, or just innovative teaching in general. What do you think about this? I'll contact Piotr too about this idea. Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ASA meetup[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology#ASA_2011. I can share my phone through an email. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Malthusian Catastrophy[edit]

Aetheling, I responded to your comments on my talk page.Jdkag (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

nugacity[edit]

Thanks for the corrections. On a minor point, though minor points are often critical, I checked for American usage here in Webster, which would justify 'and try'. Coming from a different idiomatic background, I refer to Gower's ed. of Fowler's Modern English Usage (1965) OUP 1983, writing of 'try and' has: 'It is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but used when it comes naturally.' My slight hesitation over a drafted 'to try to', led to 'try and' purely for euphonic variation. But as it stands, I have no objections. Best Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Sure, I understand. Thanks for explaining. Fowler notwithstanding, I personally avoid "to try and" like the plague. When I hear this construction, it signals to me that the speaker is unaware of how English infinitives work. Most unilingual speakers of English are not, of course, aware of such things, so I give them some latitude. For all others speakers, and for formal written English such as would be employed in any encyclopedia, I am frankly and unapologetically intolerant. — Aetheling (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I've no problem with your edit, just with your edit justification that what I wrote was ungrammatical, which according to Fowler, Gower, Websters, etc. it is not. The construction is a commonplace of nineteenth century prose masters as diverse as Carlyle, Emerson, Henry James, Melville, Ruskin and Arnold. I commend, because I share, the exercise of unapologetic intolerance on things like the niceties of grammar. The problem there is, as I hinted, that our differences on this issue refract distinct cultural tunings (Sprachgefühl:perhaps a different diet of prose in youth, mine are partially listed above) rather than the rights or wrongs of a grammatical form. But thanks. It's things like this which perk up my eyes and ears, that tend to flop and blur at my age.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Great Revival: CVU Vandalism Studies Project[edit]

Hi! We're dropping you this rather unexpected message on your talk page because you signed up (either quite a while ago or rather recently) to be a member of the Vandalism Studies project. Sadly, the project fell into semi-retirement a few years ago, but as part of a new plan to fix up the Counter-Vandalism Unit, we're bringing back the Vandalism Studies project, with a new study planned for Late 2012! But we need your help. Are you still interested in working with us on this project? Then please sign up today! (even if you signed up previously, you'll still need to sign up again - we're redoing our member list in order to not harass those who are no longer active on the Wiki - sorry!) If you have any questions, please leave them on this page. Thanks, and we can't wait to bring the project back to life! -Theopolisme (talk) & Dan653 (talk), Coordinators

Vandalism Studies Update - August 2012[edit]

Hello, members of the Vandalism Studies Project! As some of us are quite new with the Vandalism Studies project, it would make sense for us to re-read some of the past studies, as well as studies outside the project. Please do so if you have a chance, just so we can get into the groove of things. We're planning on attempting to salvage the Obama study (or possibly simply convert it to a new Romney study), as well as hopefully begin our third study this November. If you have any ideas for Study 3, please suggest them! If you have any questions please post them on the project talk page. Thanks, and happy editing - we can't wait to begin working on the project! --Dan653 (talk) and Theopolisme :)
11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to stop receiving Vandalism Studies newsletters, please remove your name from the member list.

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of All-Russian Mathematical Portal[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on All-Russian Mathematical Portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. noq (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • This might be a good opportunity to introduce you to an unofficial attitude of the Wikipedia mathematical community: USE EXTREME CAUTION WHEN EDITING ANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON MATHEMATICS. These articles are very important to us, and to our students. We don't have time to correct a lot of ignorant mistakes. Use the Talk pages to raise issues: we shall respond thoughtfully. — Aetheling (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

hello![edit]

Hello Aetheling! My attention was drawn to your announcement on the math project page, where you mentioned leaving a "sharp comment" on another user's talkpage. First of all, I totally identify with your situation (surprise at a sudden speedy-deletion without discussion) and sentiment towards the person responsible. That person's talkpage really did need a message to the effect of "you need to check how to use speedy-deletion again".

I would like to offer a few brief comments to offer on what you actually wrote, though. Most importantly, labelling an action like this as rudeness really does not assume good faith. Going on to comment on how uncivil they are being is along the same lines, and then flashing your credentials was definitely over the top. This all leaves the possibility for a bad reaction from the worst kinds of editors, when all you really want is to get their attention for being so careless.

In brief, it is not so unlikely that this person (along with many of us with similar credentials to you) has never heard of the Russian project. While that editor will definitely have to improve their tact, it's important to offer feedback with extra scoops of serenity. Happy editing! :) Rschwieb (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Good advice, thanks. I shall be more temperate next time around. — Aetheling (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Simon-Ehrlich Wager[edit]

Hi,

In a discussion in 2008 you had mentioned that you could update the graph found at Simon-Ehrlich wager. Another user has since removed the graph, since it is truly out of date by now. See: Talk:Simon–Ehrlich wager#Timing. Not sure if you would be willing to consider updating the graph now? I would do it, but don't have the skills to make a professional enough graph. If you don't want to bother that's up to you. Thanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note, Peregrine. I will have a look at my data sources to see if I can find some up-to-date figures. I'm quite busy, but I might have time in the coming week. —Aetheling (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

IPBE flag removed[edit]

Hello, Aetheling. Just so you know, I have removed your IP Block Exemption flag, as it appears that it is no longer required. From a check of your recently-used IP addresses, it does not look as though any of those IP addresses are blocked; IPBE is only granted on an as-need basis, and when that need no longer exists, the flag may be removed. If you encounter any difficulty editing as a result of this action, please post an unblock request using the {{unblock|your reason here}} template, mentioning the block message you are seeing. If you have any other questions, or you believe that you do still have a need for the IPBE flag, please let me know. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Business cycles, GDP, Recessions[edit]

Thank you for making the improvements to Business Cycles.

Hello Loren. I read about your activities on your User page. You may find articles in my Sandbox. I have many very, weakly organized topics (that are related to business cycles, GDP, recessions, etc.) posted in my Sandbox .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Copeland.James.H/sandbox. I am more focused on actively using this information and adding to that collection (than organized it for the general public). —Copeland.James.H 11:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auschwitz cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Carroll. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)