User talk:Kmhkmh

Welcome!

Hello, Kmhkmh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moulton plane

Thank you for the new Moulton plane article. It would be nice if you could expand it a bit though, if you can. Enjoy the wiki. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Divisibility

Hello, Kmhkmh. Yes, the article could be revised. My suggestion would be to have sections (or an article) for (1) definition, no remainder; times and divide are inverse functions. (2) Two simple rules for divisibility: by 2, 5, 10 on sight; by sum of digits 3, 6, 9 (and proof). (3) Separate Article --- Vedic math algorithm --- Osculation (simple, complex, multiplex, positive, and negative). (4) Separate Article?, advanced high school algebra --- Modulo arithmetic and proofs of divisibility. and ? (5) Remainder Theorem. (6) Proof of 9-rems method, casting out nines. Larry R. Holmgren 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of TeXnical nitpicking

In Morrie's law, I changed this:

$\cos(20^o) \cdot \cos(40^o) \cdot \cos(80^o)=\frac{1}{8}.$

to this:

$\cos(20^\circ) \cdot \cos(40^\circ) \cdot \cos(80^\circ)=\frac{1}{8}.$

I'm not altogether sure that there's not some other notation considered standard, but I'm pretty sure the first one is not. The difference in appearance is not only the difference between o and \circ, but also the positioning of the parentheses seems better in the second case. Michael Hardy 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this :

Image:800px-Thales theorem 6.png

By no means you are the author of this picture which is a derivative work. You did not respect the GFDL because you should have at least mentionned the source and the author. I had drawn this picture long time ago :

I fixed the description but please be careful next time, and fix other descriptions if you had performed the same kind of copy with other pictures.

-- Dake 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The pictures have always been on Commons. In fact, it would be better to ask an admin to delete the pictures here on :en, they are redundant. Regards, Dake 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Heinsohn Article

Hi, I agree that the Gunnar Heinsohn article needs information on mainstream scholarship´s opinions about his work. Eventually, I plan to overhaul the article completely, referencing the criticisms that I can find, but that might take me some time. I did include a reference to a criticism of Heinsohn´s economic model by Nikolaus K.A. Läufer (see article, Footnote 18), and I found an article by a german historian Walter Rummel [1] which I will reference in the Heinsohn article with another footnote. --Thewolf37 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  I look forward to a thorough revision this entry concerning chronology, especially since cites
to critiques of it have been added--critiques in publications that have published Heinsohn's
ideas and which he has ignored.  The influence of "editors" 89.122... and 86.106... (probably
only one person in Romania) needs to be neutralized considering this person does not seem to
appreciate the absolute veto power of negative evidence as has been provided by Cardona,
Cochrane, Mitcham, Stiebing, and Rees.  Also, why does the English version not mention the
biographical details mentioned in the German version, such as Gunnar's father's service in
the Kriegsmarine?  Phaedrus7 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Im kinda the wrong person todiscuss that with, you need to talk to Thewolf37, he is the author of the article. I just tagged since in its current form it lacked the criticism of Heihnsohn and the info, that he is considered outside of the scientific mainstream on most issues.--Kmhkmh 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just wanted to encourage you to provide edit summaries when you are working on an article. Please check Help:Edit_summary for guidelines regarding them. Edit summaries help other editors understand what you are doing with your edits. Thanks! Wildhartlivie 01:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to may more attention next time - too often i hit the save button before filling in the summary line--Kmhkmh 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

new sections at the bottom

In discussion pages (such as Talk:Ellipse), add new sections at the bottom by clicking the "new section" button. —Tamfang (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Konosha

{{Infobox Russian city}} was tailored specifically for cities/towns, while Konosha is just an urban-type settlement (the difference is quite important). It is impossible to properly fill out the city/town infobox for a locality of a different type. An infobox specifically for urban-type settlement will be developed in the future, but at the moment the consensus within WP:RUSSIA is that it is not yet needed, as 99% of articles about urban-type settlements are still very short. Adding an infobox that is triple the size of the actual article is simply ugly, and especially so when the infobox does not even fit the purpose and is mostly empty anyway! Why would you want to add an infobox if you intend to leave most of its fields empty? Hope this answers your question. Please let me know if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:58, March 18, 2009 (UTC)

well if that is the actual consensus, that's fine with me. However the current template/info box description should be modified accordingly, currently it still explictitly mentions urban-type settlement as example (or is their a difference between urban and urban type ?). Also i'm not quite clear why the urban type settlements would create a mostly empty box. shouldn't any settlement be able to fill most entries (such as coordinates,picture,population, population density, government, phone and postal codes). Moreover the info boxes usually offer the nice feature to display the location on the map, which is a nice gimmick that should be available to all settlements (and usually is for other countries/regions). So from that perspective the current regulation makes little sense to me. However assuming WP:RUSSIA is an active portal with a large number of editors, I don't want to argue against an existing consensus in particular since I hardly write or work on articles concerning Russia anyhow. Nevertheless the portal should state somewhere explicitly that the info box is not to used for urban-type settlements, because it is kinda annoying to other editors not being aware of any internal consensus to put an effort in getting the info box right, just to see it removed later on.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the template does not mention "urban-type settlements", it mentions "urban settlements", which are a different animal entirely. An urban-type settlement can be, and usually is, municipally incorporated as an urban settlement, but cities/towns can be municipally incorporated as "urban settlements" as well. I see how this can become confusing real fast, but, unfortunately, that's how the usage developed (see the urban settlement disambiguation page for an overview). When it comes to Russia, things are usually (at least on paper) neatly organized and structured, but are very seldom straightforward or easy to understand :)
To answer your other question, I did not say that using this infobox for urban-type settlements would create a mostly empty box. What I said is that you added a mostly empty infobox, and I don't understand why you would want to keep it so much if you were unable to fill it out properly. What good does an infobox do if all it contains are the map, the coordinates, incorrectly linked jurisdiction data, incorrect municipal status, unsourced population count attributed to a wrong date, incorrect town status date (and the place isn't even a town), and leaves the majority of remaining (and non-optional) parameters blank? The coordinates can be added via the {{coord}} template, and the map, if one so desires, can be added via {{location map}} (exact same one this infobox calls).
thanks i'll use that template for now then. The sourcing is a problem separate from the infobox issues. The data (urban-type status, population) was taken in good faith from the German WP, which seems to relay on a different (probably less accurate) source.That one is not an official census publication, however it is much more recent.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand. By the way, {{Infobox Russian city}} has "PopulationLatest" and "PopulationLatestDate" parameters, which can hold the population estimates done after the most recent (2002) Census. If you plan on adding this infobox to articles about cities/towns, you'd probably want to utilize this functionality.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, March 18, 2009 (UTC)
That said, you are right that a note about inapplicability of this template to urban-type settlements is in order. Not all editors are aware of the idiosyncrasies associated with the classification of inhabited localities in Russia, so an extra note would indeed be helpful. I'll add one right away.
thanks--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am once again sorry if your good-faith effort seems to have been unappreciated, but I hope you see and understand my side of the argument as well. Having an incomplete infobox three times as long as the actual article does not really help much our readers, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, March 18, 2009 (UTC)
Well i kinda agree as far as the current info box is concerned ans as i said i don't want to argue against existing consensus with people who much more knowledge than me for that particular subject. However I still think a seperate infobox for other settlements would be appropriate, since eventually all/most of them will end up in WP. The German interwiki seems to have such a box (see de:konoscha) that seems to work nicely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all against having a separate infobox for urban-type settlements and another one for rural localities; in fact, they both will eventually be created. The reason why it has not yet been done is primarily because there are very few articles on such places which are of decent enough length to warrant a full-blown infobox. Most are even shorter than Konosha's article. We could create a rudimentary infobox that would provide only the most basic info without overloading the visual appearance of short articles too much, but in the end it would simply translate to more maintenance overhead (the infobox will need to be upgraded when articles grow).
In the end, it's all about the original purpose of the infoboxes—they are supposed to summarize the most fundamental data in one easy-to-see place. When an article is only one or two paragraphs long, it's not that hard to find the most important bits by simply glancing through the text, so having the infobox is pretty much redundant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, March 18, 2009 (UTC)

Sokuluk

Hi there! I am sorry, but I don't have much on Kyrgyzstan. As far as geography goes, my scope of interest is pretty much limited to the territory of Russia. I do have some data on the places in former Soviet republics, but it is mostly very outdated and limited to major entities (oblasts, cities). I have almost nothing about villages like this one. I tried looking up Sokuluk, but all I could find was a confirmation that it's a real place (d'oh) and its administrative jurisdiction as of the 1960s. Not very helpful, I'm afraid. I did, however, find its 1989 population (see below).

The Census information is available online. You can find the link in the Konosha article—the 2002 Census data are from the official 2002 Census website (so you can't get any more official/reliable than that), but the catch with the link is that it has to be viewed in IE. There are also Excel sheets available on that website (www.perepis2002.ru). The 1989 and earlier Census data are available here. Note, however, that neither source makes population data for all rural localities available—only the data for top-level divisions, districts, cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and the largest rural localities are available. Fortunately, Sokuluk is large/important enough to have been included—as of the 1989 Census, its population is reported at 22,605 (11,001 male and 11,604 female; source).

Regarding a reliable source on stats data for Russia, the only one I know is the English version of the 2002 Census website. Not all of the data are available there, but there is still plenty for it to be useful. As for the former Soviet republics, sorry, but I know of no good English sources (you might want to ask around on the talk pages of appropriate wikiprojects, however). Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

thanks--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Intercept theorem 1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Intercept theorem 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZooFari 00:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Triangle midpoints.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Triangle midpoints.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZooFari 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

File:File:Triangle green.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Triangle green.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZooFari 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dhanush

I declined the semi-protection request because the problem seems intermittent rather than persistent and there seem to be many IPs adding useful information. Let me know if it gets worse. Regards. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is less not so much a lot of faulty edits in within a few days, but that some IP is entering incorrect information (birth date) for several months now. Its is true some IP edits is helpful but there is big bunch of rather harming then, since they constantly add unsourced material, quiten often POV and sometimes plain nonsense (see removed achievements section). As result imho without a constant supervision, the article tends to deteriorate quickly within a few weeks without supervision. I had to reset the birth date 4 times during the last couple of months and i was hoping that a temporary protection may get the concerned IPs to give up. --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agutie, who added the link, is the siteowner, and he's spammed it across many, many articles on Wikipedia. It's an ad supported site, so it should not be linked per WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Please don't readd it. Thanks - MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Agutie's case and his overall spamming behaviour. However while I agree that he should be kept from systematically promoting his own website via Wikipedia, the 2 cases in question here are somewhat different. In both cases the link does provide useful information to the article and is clearly a plus for the readers (basically by providing a very accessible prrof for the mathematical theorems). Also both articles do currently not have an abundance of sources anyhow and the 2 links are by no means redudant sources. It is true that the site is ad supported, but in this the benefits for readers clearly outweigh the minor annoyance of ad support and I do see no real conflict to WP:SPAM and WP:EL with regard to the 2 articles in question here. As the original author of both articles i respectfully ask you to leave assessment in these 2 cases to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Lemma"

Hallo Kmhkmh! Just a note: The use of the term "Lemma" to refer to the article title seems to be a peculiarity of the German Wikipedia. I've never seen it on the English Wikipedia before, and doubt it is well understood. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the hint, I wasn't awarre of the term not being used in the English WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AE Size Discussion: All 4 questions answered.

Hi Kmhkmh! How are you doing? Well, I'm here to inform you that I have those 4 questions answered. I was out of town these 2 days, and did'nt get a chance to post them in their best form sooner. So I would extremely appreciated if you can respond to them on the List of largest empires talk page. May you have a really wonderful evening. Thanks a million!--67.160.195.101 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've answered there. Btw if you don't mind, it would be helpful if you get an account, that would makes it easier to track arguments with all those different IPs around. regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Km, before my initial reply, I want to be clear since this cought my eye, regarding q2, I was looking for the largest empire in the ancient world and or classical antiquity, not Just had yet seen or known (had yet seen or known could mean a number of things, an empire which was the largest at that exact moment in history if compared to the rest of world, or that Alexander went beyond the Persian empire of HIS time, when Persia had really shrunken even losing ancient India, which Alexander conquered) which I also found even more for persia but did not list. Finding a couple for Rome which at least had the ancient history phrase in it (which if you count the mediterranean sea in the area it would higher than 9mil km2, so its possible they were counting the water area too) you will still find more for Persia, hundreds more. But finding a few for Alexader's, with one source saying ancient world, it is not enough. So I know this q2 is already settled and we already established that slighty more books favor the Persia estimate, that is why I would like to conlcude that q2 is pretty much over. Q1, 3, 4 have yet to be settled. Also reply only here for this jiffy message. Anyways the highest estimate for Alexander that I could find is 5.4, not 5.2. So I might change it to 5.4, note if the 10.7 estimate for Persia is correct, that means 5.4x2=10.8, Alexanders conquests would encompass half of Persia when it was at its greatest extent in 480 BC. Finally, just a spark realization came to mind, if Persia was at its largest in 480, which most scholars have concluded, 480 bc should already be familar to you, THEN the 1923 map that user Km chose with holes it by one deceased author that says Persia in 500 bc, would then be showing Persia when it was at least 6.4 (not 7.7 mil km2 in 480 BC) as said by multiple authors as listed in the largestempires talkpage, so even if there was NO dispute on the greatest size of Persia, the 1923 map would STILL not qualify to be chosen to show Persia in its greatest extent, especially if chosen as the main map for the Achaemenid Empire article. When I say holes in it, I mean that the Indus Valley region, Pisidia and a few others are white areas inside the map, meaning they were not part of the empire, when they should be, only one of its kind in existence, and thats the 1923 map.

You wrote awhile back...

If you claim that, then you have not read the sources carefully, literally they say about alexander and his empire:

• "the largest empire the world had yet known"
• "alexander the great[...] ruler of the largest empire the world had yet seen"
• "building the largest empire in the ancient world" This is the only good one.
• "Alexander was now master of all that comprised the largest empire the world had yet seen"

Reply here.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Xiongnu Empire's size is finally resolved!

Hi Kmhkmh, I have great news, as you now know from reading the above section that question 2 regarding the largest empire in history statements have now been resolved, meaning it was Persia. So now I would like to also inform you that I have solved the discussion on the actual size of the Xiongnu, and have found that my own figure from looking at the best reliable maps that is about 4 million km2 has turned out to be true, and is backed up by at least 4 or more professors from a academically peer viewed scholarly paper (compared to Taa's and Tur's and three other authors seen in their article which makes 5 that support a 9 million km2 figure is less, that is why I say 4 or more, meaning there is at least 6 more others that convey the averaged 4 million km2 figure in their maps, overall making 10+ support 4 million km2, and 5 support 9 million km2. In a reliable sense), which you will see the link towards the end of this message. Finally, I would like to say that now we have only 2 questions to be resolved, and that I have revised my Xiongnu evidence with the newly found sources that have finally proved that the Xiongnu Empire was about 4 million km2, less than half of Taa's and Tur's estimation which was 9 million km2, interestingly the source that I found even includes Taa's findings in the paper too! So even professor Taa has some agreement with the article. Read on...

Q3: Are there reputable maps or sources that favor a lower estimate for the Xiongnu Empire?

This book say’s that the Xiongnu were the same size as the Rouran in its greatest extent, the Rouran is currently listed as 3.8 million km2, although they come from the same source, this is eerily close to the previous removed long ago 3.5 number and 4.5 user estimated number (note 4.5 is half of 9.0), the number between 3.5-4.5 is 4.0, when the book says “as vast,” it means nearly as big as the Xiongnu, now if the Xiongnu were 4.0, nearly is 3.8ish, which is the exact estimate of the Rouran, this is critical thinking. So this book and many others yet to be found, indirectly state that the Xiongnu was around 4.0 million km2.

Also the maps below, with an exception of a deleted outdated map in the “world history maps,” range from 2.5 to 5.5 in million km2 (relatively about the same sizes, and ranges from 135-215 or 175 BC, when it was at its greatest extent), which I have painstakingly managed to calculate, some have modern day borders drawn on them, so to calculate the numbers would not be original research, because its just calculating what is the exact size of the Xiongnu as found on the maps.

In this source (and in other maps) which now agrees with the new source I found, which in this source is this one 1, The Ruanruan-Rouran arose in Mongolia to re-create an empire as vast as the Xiongnu. Which later it tells how far the Rouran reached, and I searched those locations, which meant a figure of 3.8-4.5. Now, the maps I included were the best I can find on the entire net, which again is here to show that they are reputable sources and this has been revised too, (these maps range from 2.5-5.5); Metropolitan Museum of Art 2, Allempires.com internets #1 resource for all empires 3, This is were Wikipedia gets its historical maps from, hundreds of articles get their maps from this guy, who I checked seems to be an academic, like Livius.org 4, University of Texas at Austin (I found the original source which is a map and article with sources created by the professor himself, scroll to the bottom of the page) 5, University of Oregon 6a-the department and its map-6b.

Well, what else can I say? I can say that if I had to find more Xiongnu maps, they would come from unreliable sources or user created, so I chose the best 5, and that the p. 36 source indirectly implies that the Xiongnu were as vast as the Rouran, thus agreeing with that new source that I found.

Here is that NEW 2008 source that I am talking about, it would take some time to write the author, book title, and other things, so I just have the link for you, which would be easier for both of us, and so if this is accepted by Wikipedia, then I'll cite it in the article. Here is the source (just go to first page to see the title and it's many authors, and remember to scroll all the way down to see the actual PDF looking paper, don't read the above text, which actually doesn’t matter, because they are the same thing).

This link; in link A is page 1 mentioning what is figure 1(a), in link B is page 2 that shows a 4 million km2 map of the Xiongnu Empire in figure 1(a) at 155-200 or about 175 BC, when it was at its greatest extent A, B.

This link; in link A that is also the last one is page 8 which states the exact figure of 4 million km2 for the Xiongnu Empire map that is seen in the last sentence A.

Currently in the ancient empires section of the article it says this for the largest empire there: 1, The Xiongnu Empire is the largest empire in the ancient world; no statement like this has ever been found in a book or anywhere, and we established and proved that most sources favor Persia and some for Rome. 2, The Xiongnu Empire is 9 million km2; only 5 reliable authors support this, and more than 10 reliable authors support less than half that figure, so we established through maps and sources which proved that the main, most, or second largest stated estimated is 4 million km2.

Conclusion: Basically the vast majority or 90% of the reputable maps and sources that I and others have spent months of finding and researching, agree that the Xiongnu Empire did not exceed 5 million km2, or was about 4 million km2 in 175 BC at its greatest extent.

I dearly thank you very much for reading this message, and hope that you may reply here or in the articles talk page, I suggest making a new section so I can find your message, because the previous sections are too crowded. Greatest regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright - thanks for all the effort you put into this. As far as the maps are concerned they all look good but not all of them qualify as reputable sources. Meaning you can use them as additional source or info but not as a primary source to make any claims in the article. Most of those maps have not been published and some explicitly state that their creator is an (unpublished) hobbyist. However the "all academic" one seems ok. It is apparently from a conference paper and can be seen as reputable enough. The best way to cite it is to give the exact publication info for the conference paper and add in brackets a link to the online version. Also note that if you still lack a reputable source for an exact figure and your essential argument breaks down to a (selfmade) area computation based on that all academic map, you need to explain/outline that in a footnote. regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok Kmhkmh, appreciate the reply! Your last sentence addresses an important issue, I think on page 8 where the stated figure of the Xiongnu is, the author explains (even citing Taa) as to what they (meaning the 4 authors of the article) used and chose a 4 million km2 figure for the Xiongnu. I'll put something similar to what they said, an outline as you mentioned, explaining why that number was chosen, and why overall it is perfered by most others (meaning most other reputable sources). I will also not make it too long as I did on your talk page, as it might look to some uninformed users as OR, because they might not know that there could not be found any maps, let alone an exact figure that illustrates a 9 million km2 number. Also, between me and you, if one studies this carefully, it should be easy to understand that my new source is comparative, thus making it more reliable, and it already agrees with most other maps and books on the Xiongnu size, its the second largest figure, and not a fringe estimate as made in Taa's and Tur's papers. On the next message (which will be in the articles talk page, and will come in about a week, so you don't have to worry about making a fast reply, I know that you might be busy, so even I want to get this issue over with as soon as possible LOL!), it will try to finally resolve question 4 in our AE size discussion, I'm doing this question by question so our objectives will be more clear, I'll try my best to make it short, and so far (q2 and q3) 2/4 of the questions have been resolved. Therefore, I thank you for the great advice.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Microfinance

Please do not exceed 3RR on articles even if an IP is spamming them: you too run the risk of a block for edit warring or 3RR. Since I decided to semi-protect the article I am not blocking you or the IP; the alterative would have been to block both which seemed unfair. Next time ask for help at AN/I or similar. --BozMo talk 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I did actually requested an IP block repeatedly, which seemed to have worked fine last week. This IP was kinda driving me nuts. Anyhow semi protection of the page for discouraging spamming/pov pushing is fine with me. Thanks.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I only did three days protection. Ok, I have seen the report on the AN/V page now and removed it as dealt with. If I am around and they do it again give me a shout, I saw the comment to Siobham Hansa's page. But leaving the page with spam on for twenty minutes is better than an editor like you getting a 3RR block next time please. --BozMo talk 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to be more patient next time. I'll keep the article on my watchlist for a while and let you know directly if further problems arise. The last time he actually came back after a 5 day break.Regards ---Kmhkmh (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 The Editor's Barnstar I am happy to award you this Editor's Barnstar for spotting a well-referenced but mistaken claim on the ancestors of Zheng He, and your thoughtful notes on this claim John Hill (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the compliment--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD List of largest empires

Are you sure you re voting delete here? the article you mentioned as adequately sourced is the one put up for deletion. thanks and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, i confused the 2 deletion procedures, that article that could/should be deleted is List_of_major_empires.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thwarted progress on largest empires article

Hi Kmhkmh, I am recently concerned about your editing, and removal of reputable sources from the Achaemenid Empire. Which goes with the ranking of the Roman Empire;

1. For the Roman Empire, as you may know, awhile back you yourself provided sources that state it was the largest or second largest ancient empire. That is I want to be clear, this is not my desired ranking as you state, I am simply going with information that you found, and with a book I remember that gave Rome a 9.0 km2 estimate, which leads me to believe it was one of the largest. Secondly, I had to make the number 6.51, because some users mistakenly edit it and because it was in AD 117, not AD 100, they think it should be under the Han Empire, forgetting Rome was larger than Han. That is why I put 6.51, so the IPs would not keep doing that.

2. So that leaves us the AE. Km, I am recently beginning to question that you call yourself a mathematician, as it seems when coming to that article, your critical thinking of the researched sources is left behind. Also these two new sources are newer than the last two sources. I even found a third source, but decided to keep the best two reputable.

A. The first source comes from an (when you have time to read this overall message, please look though each link very carefully to confirm what I state, this would save time in which I don't have to repeat myself) award winning young adult (historical facts i.e numbers and statistics-blended with a story) book which you could buy it at amazon.com (I didn't provide the link because Wikipedia has a spam filter which would not let me post my message), written by a person who is a author, journalist, lecturer, painter, photographer with increasing notoriety, which here is the award, the second edition which is the 2008 one, and who has physically been to Persia and taken pictures. Which this book has appeared on numerous important websites. Now I'm going to admit it was not written by a PhD individual, but it appears to be a worthy person for the source, as it itself states, the historical information is blended into story, but its still historical information. The comcast part in the beginning just means they used comcast to help build their site. Therefore, you can't say this is a childish source, because then your judging the book by the drawing on its cover page. In the link, the statement reads, "Did you know that The Persian Empire covered more than 3 million square miles, from Europe to India, from Africa to the Russian Steppes? When referenced it looks like this...

Lee, Howard, "Jamshid and the Lost Mountain of Light", BookSurge Publishing, p. i (Background) also see Bibliography, (February 20, 2008).

I even found this, the paragraph below could be found in the [notoriety] link. Apparently even the officials at the British Museum think the book is notable enough to be showcased there with their own older book, that is California press based, which means the older source is not necessarily from the British Museum.

"Jamshid and the Lost Mountain of Light" in British Museum for landmark exhibition "Jamshid and the Lost Mountain of Light" has been ordered by the British Museum for the landmark exhibition: "Forgotten Empire - the world of Ancient Persia". The book provides a unique children's perspective on this era of world history, portraying the sophistication of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. This opinion matches the theme of the British Museum's exhibition, and runs counter to the barbarian image of the Persians that was handed to western civilization by the Ancient Greeks. Reviews of the exhibition are finding this new, positive way of looking at the Ancient Persians a revelation. (See reviews in The Times of London, The Economist, The BBC, The Telegraph, The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Independent, The Washington Post) Link to the exhibition site

B. The second source is more reliable then the first one. So lets go through this one by one. At the top it says, "This is the html version of the file http://www.candlestar.co.uk/fileadmin/files/Press_Releases/MOP/Family_Programme_at_the_British_Museum_2008.doc. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web," ALL this means is that you can download it on Microsoft Word to print it out, it has nothing to do with viewing an old or new version of a blog (if you click on it and download the html, you can see the British Museum logo and the Magic of Persia logo at the bottom of the page)! Don't forget that this is a family program (don't let that trick you) in the British Museum for the showcasing of artifacts and to better learn about Persia. Its the pamphlet or part of the poster advertising the event-which was probably attended by the experts. It says, The range of free activities and events will engage with the collections at the British Museum and the newly restored Ancient Iranian galleries, showcasing the rich cultural heritage of the Persian Empire. You can even contact the ones who authored the event (you see this in the reference form below). The Magic of Persia conferences also bring together various scholars on Persia, so they are reliable organization, you can search the site. So this is main thing, a note us the readers;

Notes to editors:

• Magic of Persia is a non-profit, non-political charity, registered in the UK and the USA, which educates young people on the value and unique contribution of Persian culture to society. Magic of Persia achieves its mission through the development and promotion of education and communication programmes, in partnership with world-class institutions. For further information contact www.magicofpersia.com / info@magicofpersia.com
• The first Magic of Persia Family Day was held in 2005 at the British Museum, attracting 15,000 people. The 2006 Family Weekend, held at the Victoria and Albert Museum, drew 40,000 people over the two days. Following the Family days’ past success, the British Museum has invited Magic of Persia to collaborate on a 3 year project focusing, in the first year, on the Achaemenid Dynasty (the legacy of Cyrus the Great). The ultimate aim of the Education Programme is to see ancient Persia taught more widely as part of the school curriculum.
• The British Museum is committed to increasing awareness of Ancient Persia through our permanent recently refurbished galleries, temporary exhibitions and cultural events.

All I did is replaced an old British Museum Online source, that the 7.5 figure is probably not even mentioned in the book itself (I've had trouble finding it in the book), with a newer source from the British Museum's showcasing event of Persia that states, The Persian Empire once stretched over 3 million square miles, from Asia, to Europe and Africa. When referenced it looks like this...

Claudia Garuti, Katrina Whenham, "Persia Family Program at the British Museum", Sponsored by Magic of Persia (April 16-20, 2008, 11:00-16:30). Most cited as the largest empire in ancient history.

C. Finally, in conclusion it is clear that both of the sources I provided have direct connections or are even showcased in the exhibition on Ancient Persia at the British Museum. Also, I was neutral in seeing what it means by MORE THAN and OVER 3 million square miles. I provided the answer in the last section of the talk page, but you didn't even bother to look at that. So I'll put it here. Read this sentence after going on the link, now if 3.055 rounds to 3.06, and not 3.1, then 3.06 (and 3.055) would be 7.9 million km2. Even if it was 3.09 it would 8.0 million km2. The Forgotten Empire is 7.5 million km2 and Strauss source says nearly 3 million square miles, meaning 2.9. I even remember a source saying over 2 million square miles for Alexander, and the same book stated later than it meant 2.1, which is 5.2 million km2 as you see in the article right now. So anyways we have another source saying the same thing, that even over means 3.1 million square miles or 8.0 million km2. So basically, these two new sources I provided confirm the size at 8.0 million km2, and say anyone can use them as a source if it is referenced properly. Therefore, they are beyond reliable and reputable if you ask me. Just respond here. Regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this, you and/or other IPs keep trying to push the envelope here - repeatedly violating WP principles. This is a non-negotionable point in WP, you have to quote sources accurately and you have to use proper reputable sources and not just "some sources". If you really believe your sources are appropriate, discuss them with other editors of the discussion page for AE. After a positive consensus is reached, there may be a chance to use them (as an exception). However imho the chances for reaching positive consensus on such sources are slim to none. --Kmhkmh (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I want to apologize for my bitter tone and for putting a mountain of explanations for the two sources I used. Firstly, all I am saying is that the Forgotten Empire and Jamshid book (the second one saying more than 3 million sq2) are both endorsed by the British Museum (therefore there is no difference).

Being endorsed by the museum doesn't automatically make them a reputable source nor does it guarantee the correctness or reliability of its content. Moreover children's book are usually no proper source for WP. Also in any case you did not cite either of the 2 books anyhow, but just a private website who gives a figure that it might or might not have gotten from the book. Most important is, that as an exception you might use such sources if nothing else is available. However for the Persian Empire there is enough reputable and scholarly material available, but you apparently just dislike its information. That however is your personal problem and irrelevant for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, even on the pamphlet were the British Museum exhibition would take place it says over 3 million sq2, if you go to Google.com and type in 3.1 million square miles, and press enter, you would get 8.0 million square kilometers. It's as simple as that, now either you can put 7.9999 or 8.0, its your choice. I have already proven that both sources are reputable (you have only said this is against Wikipedia, explain why), one from a book, the other from the pamphlet. And they are both are either from or supported by the British Museum, a newer version of Forgotten Empire (that say's 7.5) and Strauss book (that say's 7.7).

yes the 7.5 and 7.7 are from acceptable sources and they can be used, the google cached museum flyer is not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't say its you and/or other IPs, frankly that is an incorrect statement, most of the IPs (including a few users which I would not name) have damaged the article (which almost got it deleted), twisting sources and adding non-existent empires with made up sections. While it was me who rescued the article many times from destruction. Only me and IP 59. (he made blatant mistake on the Xiongnu making it 7.5 if you remember) have contributed thoroughly and kept the article going. Many users have come along claiming they are neutral, and then accepted on the smallest estimates for some empires, thus being not neutral. That is why I have a hesitant tone towards some users. When it comes to you, so far I have resolved most of our disputes in the article, and I am sure that if we become more open towards reaching an understanding that would be splendid. I will follow your advice and discuss them on the talk page. Therefore, I greatly thank you for reading this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.18.20.113 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be confused with other IPs, get an account. There is no easy way to tell various IPs apart, maybe they are all different people maybe they are all used by the same person. I don't know and to some degree I don't really care, all i see is various IPs making repeatedly questionable entries. And again you can easily avoid any confusion or being blamed for the wrong thing, if you get an account. So I strongly encourage you to get one. Regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay lets be clear, firstly I will try to get an account. Secondly, there are probably details that you may have missed so whether they are reputable enough has clearly not been answered-which we disagree on. Thirdly, I don't dislike any information, I was simply, because I am interested in the List of largest empires article (my ultimate goal is to research other empires once I am done with the Achaemenid one, so my interests go beyond Persia), was trying to find the largest estimate for the Achaemenid Empire, and found the 8.0 sources, now it seems clear that you agree that 3.1 sq miles is 8.0 sq kilometers, but you don't agree that it's reliable. So as I was saying, after researching a long time I found those two sources, and checked if they were reliable enough, then I added them. I was not, as you imply, just picking anything I could find in the sky, I Checked if the book and pamphlet had historical details (by the way you say there is no way to find out if the figure actually appears in book, which means you forgot to look at the top where it is titled under Introduction or Bibliography, check it again), the author won a award, it was showcased at the Forgotten Empire (this is the title of the event which includes the Family Program and a title of a book) exhibition at the British Museum (if you download the pamplet it has the British Museum seal/logo at the bottom of the page, indicating it is Part of the British Museum, duh!), and if it was newer. ALL of the above checked out, I knew you were going to ask these many questions, so I answered them beforehand. But it seems your highness, the Almighty one does not accept my offerings to thee God that he is-of (It's up to me to decide if these sources are reputable enough). You know I'm just kidding right? Don't worry, I'll just go discuss this on the talk page now, I encourage you respond there, so your page does not get filled up. Bestest of regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Too little, too late :(

I read you latest post, but IMHO the issue is solved. They are currently the majority (probably will remain so), they won't let go, and nothing you can say now will make a diff now. Too little, too late, and tough luck.

The so-called "neutral" BCE/CE dating system is indeed Political Correctness' finest creation ever.

• By claiming that 'BC/AD' is Christian bias they basicly argue that BCE/CE is neutral. I have large doubts that BC/AD has any religious meaning at all for the overwhelming majority of English-speakers. IMHO it is simply the most popular dating system of this planet, no more and certainly no less.
• It certainly has Christian origins, but so does 'bless you' and other English expressions. Give them enought time...
• The fact that BC/AD is way more popular and that most average English-readers are not familiar with BCE/CE is deemed irrelevant.
• How a dating system specifically created to replace the most popular one can be considered "neutral" is beyond me.
• The fact that this BCE/CE is of mostly US origin and largely unknown in Europe (especially in the UK and Ireland) is deemed irrelevant. We have to copy it blindly.
• Merry Christmas seems to be getting unpopular in some US quarters. One can only wonder how long it will take to become an issue in Europe too.
• You don't want to hurt the religious sensibilities of non-Christians (atheists, muslims, budhists, etc), do you? You must be aware how they are "automatically hurt" by the use of BC/AD. One can only wonder how they can even use such a Christian-biased language at all.
• Everybody seems to agree that English is the language of the future. Therefore English has to be "neutralized" asap (reforged along PC lines).
• On a personal I want to make clear that I'm a strong atheist (reached the conclusion that there is no 'god' long ago). However I'm not a rabid anti-Christian disguising myself under the cover and disguise of so-called "neutrality" to strike against the Man (the so-called Christian/Western establishment).
• What I honestly find absolutly disgusting is the self-rightous manner these guys are using PC-arguments in the name of non-Christians (and therefore in my name too) to impose their PC-bullshit. Flamarande (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC) PS: Have you noticed how the categories of the article became "red" (don't exist)? You see, it's precisely because the majority of English wiki users use BC/AD (BC/AD is de facto the standard here). Nearly all categories use BC/AD (this matter couldn't matter less for the BCE/CE defenders. They want their precious "neutrality" NOW.)
I don't have preference for either way and imho the discussion is a waste of time. However imho one cannot handle the polls as warrior4321 did.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Wacha gonna do, man? Complain? I would back you up, but is it worth the bother at all? IMHO, yes (because these guys are probably going to do the same again, and again ad absurdum - and others are going to copy them). Would you back me up in a ettiquete complain? Flamarande (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
If they repeat such a stunt on another article, I would back a complaint of yours. As far as the Persian Empire article is concerned, it was comment on what seems inappropriate behaviour to me, but i have no interest to extend the imho pointless BC/BCE discussion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, I don't want to involve myself here, but lets be civil, claiming your beliefs and saying you don't care is unnecessary on Wikipedia. As I expressed my vote on the main article, accepting User:Flamarande's proposal to make the articles BCE, would mean we have to change 90% of the current before common era articles. So after listening to both points of view, I don't mind changing it to BCE, but it would create a mountain of work that we have to fix. Thanks.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why ypost this here, you need to discuus that on he talk page of the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again and again

Hi Kmhkmh, (please read this message carefully) could you please tell me why this can't be a used as a source? Is it against Wikipedia guidelines for the Persian Empire to be larger than 7.5 km2? Did you even bother to read the article, where she is writing about the BP sponsoring of the British Museum's Forgotten Empire exhibition (which is a book too, and I had made a mistake, just like BP sponsored the event, so did Magic of Persia, the Museum itself did not sponsor Magic of Persia, it was the other way around, so that flier officially comes from the British Museum).

Anyways, regardless of this issue, I would like to announce that I have found the British Museum source saying over 3 million m2 or 8.0 km2, and many others, plus I will show the Forgotten Empire book which has the 7.5 number to be Contradictory (on the first back flap of the book it say's the empire was over 2 million m2, which is 5.2 million km2, then on page 217 of the same book, it say's the empire was 2.9 million m2, or 7.5 million km2, the only way to see this is to go to Amazon.com and sign in to see inside the book, on Google.com the page cannot be seen), I will provide that Finale explanation and present new reliable sources that will finally solve the 8.0 issue by this night.

However, I wrote this message because I wanted you to tell me why the historical person, who is a editor, and journalist of 15 years experience writing about the British Museum's event of the Persian Empire in a British Petroleum magazine is not good enough for you? Most interestingly, to date, we have a 5.2 (BM, BP?, the same book 2005), 7.5 (BM, BP?, the same book 2005), 7.8 (BP, end of 2005), and 8.0 (BM, middle of 2007, if you remember the source I provided you could have even contacted them) estimates all coming from the British Museum, that tells me the estimates are made by certain individuals, but it is reliable, because other than the 7.8 estimate, most are the historians of the British Museum, that made those estimates. Also, because in the article we are choosing the largest estimates, currently the largest estimate is the 8.0, so we would have to pick that. Also, please go to this link 1, there is a surprise, the main guy behind the event, is the chief executive of the BP Group, oops! Another reason why we should also pick the 8.0 source, other than being the largest reliable based estimate, the estimate comes from the British Museum in 2007-08, so it is an updated estimate, or a newer source. Finally, 7.5, 7.8, and 8.0 are pretty close to each other, therefore, an 8.0 estimate is not out of the ordinary.

(In the pdf document, type in the page area, 59, and go to page 59) Bishop, Hilary, "Persia: The true story", The BP Magazine: THE INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE OF THE BP GROUP, Garden House Press Ltd. BP p.l.c., Chertsey Road Sunbury-upon-Thames Middlesex TW16 7LN: United Kingdom. Issue 3, pp. 60-61 (2005)

Respond here, regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the same issue again and again - proper sources. Yes I've read the article and a British Petrol magazine is obviously no proper source in particular not for historic content. The sources you've used in that last edits (flyer, chlidren's book and not the BP magazine) can be used at best as "emergency sources" if nothing else is available. However for the Persian empire there is enough scholarly material around and that has to be used. Scholarly material clearly outranks those "emergency sources" even more so on contested issues. So far I've seen a consistent pattern of various IP edits to achieve a "as large as possible" area for the Persian empire in both Wikipedia articles, starting with self computed figures, questionable self made maps and now "emergency sources", while more reputable sources and scholarly papers were available all the time, but were not used (possibly because they don't provide the desired high figures). Btw the book "Forgotten empire: the world of ancient Persia" you've linked above seems ok as a source and is an academic publication. However its authors are different from the BP article nor does it seem to have the 7.8 figure. However if you want to cite anything from that book i have no objections. Hilary Bishop however is from all we can tell no historian but just a journalist (possibly without any particular knowledge in history besides what she researched for the article). We have no idea where she got the 7.8 figure from, maybe it was updated info, maybe it was just a typo or some other mishap. We know however that the current website of the British Museum states 7.5 and not 7.8. Obviously a text compiled by the (expert) staff of the museum itsself outranks a the article of a non expert journalist who "just" compiled the museum sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, well I'm glad that you seem to understand the issue I raised here. Also, as large as possible method was not invented by me. It was and is the standard outline of the Largest empires article, for example, we could have kept 5.9 for Rome, but chose 6.5, a number first cited by yourself if you remember (also don't forget empires sizes increased and decreased that is why some say 5.0 or 8.0 for Persia, same with Rome). So basically I do agree that it was a emergency source, but please remember the Magic of Persia Foundation (8.0), and BP (7.8) sponsored the Forgotten Empire exhibition which a book was made from it too. So when we see those two in the book itself, it means its Estimates are also accepted by the British Museum (I will elaborate on this in the next message, the bombshell message). If you remember Strauss's book, it had a 7.7 estimate, and 7.8 is basically the same. Other than this, the only option for me is to cite the new proper sources that I found (from the British Museum itself, hint... 8.0 from 2007), so you can forget about this 7.8 source, I put it so you can see the estimates for the size of Persia are increasing year by year, maybe their catching up to what I have been saying all along, who knows? Finally, I just want to say that I agree with you, and will post the bombshell message in the talk page of the largest empire article. So see ya there, thanks.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me add 2 additional things here. The assumption that the British Museum may internally have a new, revised figure, being indicated by the children's book and BP magazine using it, is a reasonable explanation in a way. But strictly speaking without having a reliable backup from the British Museum itself, it is still mere speculation. In other words it might be good enough to (informally) convince you or me, but it is not good enough for Wikipedia, which should prefer the original reputable source (i.e. the figure published by the British Museum itself). As far as the race for the largest number goes, at least for the list of largest empires- article that is fair game as long as it is based on reputable sources and about finding the exact figure for the peak area. So there is a difference between finding the (correct) peak area for each empire based on reputable sources and finding the largest figure that somehow can be reasoned or speculated. The former is ok in Wikipedia, but the latter is not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bombshell message

Hello there, (firstly, I like to apologize for the long message, if you read this carefully and fast it will be over in a jiffy, appreciated) I guess you decided to respond here again. And that is totally fine, so I have decided to save time, and endless debating from other uninformed users, by posting the sources here. This way, things will be finished much faster. Okay then, here it goes...

This first set of sources is the 7.8 ones, which as of now, are the second most cited estimates for the size of the Persian Empire (as you may notice, I found out that 3 million km2 roughly translates and rounds to 7.8, not 7.7);

1. AE area estimated by Strauss (2005) is nearly 7.8 million km2 (Strauss, Barry S., The Battle of Salamis, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, p. 37. (2004) At its greatest extent, Strauss estimates as large as the continental U.S., excluding Alaska and Hawaii, which would be 7.8 million km2 in 480 BC).
2. Bishop, Hilary, "Persia: The true story", The BP Magazine: THE INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE OF THE BP GROUP, Garden House Press Ltd. BP p.l.c., Chertsey Road Sunbury-upon-Thames Middlesex TW16 7LN: United Kingdom. Issue 3, pp. 60-61 (2005).
3. AE area estimated by Alloway (2008) is about 7.8 million km2 in 480 BC, at its absolute greatest extent for one year 480-479 right before the battle of Plataea (this is where I think it's 10.7 [~10.0] not 7.8).
4. Reviewer of the Forgotten Empire say's 7.8, he is a journalist.
5. This is a more reliable source that has the 7.8 million km2 stated in an article in the "IranQuest:" Iran News & Opinion magazine, written by (this is what it actually say's on the site)... Sheda Vasseghi has a Masters in Ancient History with emphasis on ancient Persia. She is a member of the Azadegan Foundation and is a regular contributor to political magazines such as WorldTribune.com.
6. This is an Oxford lecture/course/day school on the Persian Empire that say's it was 7.8 million km2, this is really reliable, it is enrollment form of some kind.

This second set of sources is the 8.0 ones, which as of now, are the third most cited estimates for the size of the Persian Empire (remember, when they say over or more than 3 million square miles, it means, as I found for books that say over 2 million is 5.1 or 5.2, so over 3 million square miles translates to 3.1, even 3.07-09 is 8.0 million km2. Even if we wanted to be neutral, 3.01-3.1 which are the only candidates for the meaning of over or more than 3 = 3.055, that rounds to 3.06, which that rounds to 3.1 anyways, which is 8.0289 million km2 at its basic.);

By far, the 7.5, and newly discovered 8.0 are the most reliable, as both come directly from the British Museum, alright then. So as you can see, I managed to find a 8.0 source, from the British Museum's official Booklet in the family program section (not a Persian Golden Lioness Awarding winning best children s semi-historical book, or MP flier, or BP advertisement), and remember just because Magic of Persia or BP [appears in the book too] (both being a British, and legitimate, but non-historical sources) and possibly others, were responsible for sponsoring (try to remember what sponsoring actually means) the event, they had nothing to do with coming up with the estimates.

Like if I sponsor or give a contribution (like money or funding) to an exhibition on physics, it is not up to me to come up with the information/formulas in the physics exhibition, because I don't know it anyways, it is up to the exhibition people (British Museum historians) themselves. Can you understand what I am saying here? Can you remember when I said that flier was from the British Museum (it was mostly my fault because I said the British Museum sponsored it, when it was actually the Magic of Persia that was doing the sponsoring of the exhibition taking place at the British Museum)? Also, after rereading your last message, I know that you don't have a problem with the empire being 8.0, that is why I followed your advice, and almost quoting you, "it would be acceptable for Wikipedia to have the 8.0 figure from a source that is directly from the British Museum," well, I guess I have, and that's the last link under the 8.0 sources.

So finally I ask you, can I cite this official British Museum published in 2007-08 (note, the Forgotten Empire Exhibition estimate was from 2005) Booklet titled Persia Family Activities Exhibition that was sponsored by possibly BP, and the Magic of Persia Foundation, which has an 8.0 estimate for the Persian Empire (which this is probably the first place it appeared in, and was approved to be in the booklet by the British Museum historians/trustees), in the largest empires article? Plus, if you cannot accept that, I have the other two reliable 8.0 sources I can cite too. So which would you prefer I cite? Thank you very much.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kmh, please respond on the talk page of the achaemenid empire to my new message, shall I put the sources back (since your not responding)? And I'm also searching for more over 3 million square miles sources, and it looks I might find some more... How many reliable sources will it take?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you should not. You should only replace the figure of British Museums website, if you have a source of similar or higher reputation that states a larger figure. That means it should be an academic book or paper dealing with the Achaemenid Empire in particular or historic empires/topic in general, but containing a section or data for the Achaemenid Empire. This might appear somewhat picky by me, but there is a good reason for that. First of all in cases of dispute the ranking of sources (by reputation of the publisher, author, quality/correctness of the content, whether it is peer reviewed or not) matters a great deal. If this is not strictly enforced, we will get all sorts of questionable info & data in Wikipedia, just because it was published somewhere. Another problem is that non academic publications or much of what I called "emergency sources" may even get some of their data or information from Wikipedia itself, which kinda creates a "vicious circle" and this is another reason not to resort to "emergency resources" if more reputable sources are available. I grant you that the amount of the "emergency sources" having a 8 million figure seems to suggest that there might be some academic source containing that figure. But unless we see that actual original academic source stating that figure this is merely a reasonable speculation and as such not good enough for Wikipedia. So as long as we do do not have that "original" academic source with the 8 million figure, we have to stick to the academic sources (of high reputation), that we actually do have and use their figures.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that the historians' "over 3 million miles miles2" estimate refers to the Achaemenid Empire!

Hi Kmhkmh (I want to thank you and apologize beforehand for reading this very long message), I managed to find a source from Sheda Vasseghi on the size of the Achaemenid Empire. Her article in World Tribune came out three day's later and said, 1,300 years before 800 AD (which is 500 BC)-at one point it was over 3 million m2. Now the only problem was that we were not sure if she was referring to the Achaemenid or Sassanid Persians, her 1,300 years before hint means that it was the Achaemenids, but you ignored that.

So I later found her other article from Iran Quest which she directly states that it was the Achaemenid Empire that was approximately 3 million m2. So that would mean we now have two pieces of evidence linking the estimate with the Achaemenids, not Sassanids. Two reasons why it can't be Sassanid Empire anyways; the Sassanids never got near 3 million m2, let alone over 3 million m2, and 1,300 years before 800 AD is not 600 AD when the Sassanids were becoming at their largest.

This is the Iran Quest article she posted Friday, October 9, 2009, 1, and her World Tribune (a more reliable news agency) article she posted Monday, October 12, 2009, 2.

These are her credentials, that can be found in this Achaemenid website, and read this carefully and compare if the information matches with the two other sites I posted, 3, and she is also listed as the few existing Achaemenid scholars speaking in the conference, in the most academic website for Persia, her name and biography can be found towards the end of the page 4.

You could also see at the last site various universities in which that conference would have been held, and the British Museum is one of them, this means she has direct connections to the Museum too. So this would also mean that her articles are not emergency sources, but pretty new sources from a reliable person, of which she is backed up by the British Museum Booklet.

Of which you still have not given a reasonable excuse for not letting (I will ask others if this source is reliable, and get a consensus from that, which they find that this source is more than reliable, even more than the current Song Empire that listed in the largest empires article as having the third largest percentage of GDP for an empire, which the source comes from a blog) me add it. I now remember that I had a similar problem with another user, who would only accept a 5.5 estimate for Persia, and ignore the British Museums' 7.5, which his excuse was that it was not a comparative source.

Therefore, I had listed all the 7.8 and 8.0 sources in the last message. So remember, that 7.8 million km2= 3 million m2, and 8.0 million km2= "over" or "more than" (in mathematical terminology, like appreciate and depreciate) 3 million m2. I am going to follow Wikipedia guidelines that tell me a newer version from a reliable source is better than a older version, in her newer article, that I can infer and she implies with evidence that at one point (Achaemenid Empire) it was over 3 million km2. So I have to list that source. I have done all I can, and my conclusion is that there is no reason why we can not add this source, I have found others, but you rejected them.

Finally, the only reason why I think you would call this an emergency source, is that there is none left at the moment, because all the others were scrapped by yourself. Please understand, my point is that I am trying to find the highest reliable estimate for the Achaemenid Empire, I'm not going decide if the British Museum (that is also made up of human beings) is better than this source, or the other way around.

It is not up to us to decide which source is a little better or not (I mean only for sources that are both reliable, if Sheda Vasseghi was a child commenting in blog, then of course the British Museum source would be more reliable), it is up to us to find if they are reliable enough for Wikipedia, if they are truly verifiable. It can not be a mere speculation, if she and the other sources keep saying "over" or "more than" 3 million m2, which they do.

You see, I am getting the idea that this is going on; It is okay for other empires to have (at best) flimsy sources behind their estimates, but the Achaemenid Empire has to have a perfect source, or its estimate can not be listed. I say, let me add this source, and if she decides to put the estimate in a book that she might write in the future, I will replace it with that. But, because we have this estimate now that it exists, we should list it to keep Wikipedia updated with the newest estimates. In my harrowing conclusion, it seems I was correct (I am really getting tired of this) about Sheda Vasseghi as being a reliable source, thee end... Or not?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not moving forward this way, you are making again a lengthy argument for the "emergency" sources, but the central objection regarding the ranking of sources (academic articles over regular journalism, more reputable sources over less reputable sources) is still not addressed. Your claim that the world tribune states 8 million 1300 years before the islamization in 800 AD is simply false. Here is the literal quote, that kinda speaks for itself: " the students are unaware that Iran's pre-Islamic history spans 1300 plus years and, at one point, covered over 3 million square miles of territory." The claim that all the other estimates use "flimsy" evidence is not true. Many of the figures in List of largest empires stem from academic papers or books. The revised figure for the Roman empire for instance come from 2 books specifically dealing with the roman empire as their sole subject and one of the authors is actually an archeology professor at a British university. If there are other cases in that article where the figures stem from questionable sources they should be cleared out and frankly since you seem to be one of the main authors you probably should have done so a long time ago. Also note that the use of "emergency" sources is reasonable as long as the article does not have any other (better) sources. But this is not the case for the Persian empire, there are academic resources available, you just don't want to use them and that is not reasonable at all. Wikipedia should be updated with the newest data, that stems from the best sources, not just new or different stemming from any source. Assuming Sheda Vasseghi has picked the 8 million figure from a reputable academic source than this is one you need reference if you want the 8 million figure in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a real moot. Firstly, you forget that at one point means the Achamenid Empire (in her previous article she say's that the Achaemenid Empire was approximately 3 million square miles, if you think in her second article [which contains the one point statement] she is referring to the Sassanid Empire, then your telling me the Sassanid Empire was 8.0?), since no other Iranian empire even reached 2.5 (not even the only other candidate which are the Sassanids). Secondly, what I meant to say is that MOST of the cited sources are not that reliable, and don't come from academic journals, the Taagepera source is used for a lot of empires, and currently there is no way to prove that those figures for some of the empires actually appear in his paper, as no link is provided.
Do you actually read the sources you are using? If you think Taagepera is quoted inaccurately then get the paper and look it up or ask the original author who has used that paper. Furthermore there is another academic paper (Turchin/Hall/Adams) used in the article, which is available online and which mentions some of the Taagepera figures as well.
In the previous message, I have provided at least 4 books, and 3 articles (one from Oxford University) that say the Achaemenid Empire was 7.8. And your missing the point, If I find a 6.7 source for the Roman Empire that is from a reputable person I would add that (I was the one who found the second source for the Roman Empire at 6.5), it is not only about the Achaemenids. So you seem to be favoring more British sources (which is against Wikipedia guidelines, especially neutrality), and currently Sheda Vasseghi is a teacher and attending a prestigious American university for her Masters degree in the ancient history of Persia (she is a specialist in the Achaemenid times) as all the sources say. I am going to address here that I am not ranking anything, you wont accept the so called better British Museum sources (which I already proved in the talk page of the Achaemenid Empire article that it directly comes from the British Museum, because your ranking it), so that forces me to look and find the Sheda Vasseghi (which you think is of lower status as compared to the British Museum, because your ranking it), so when I try to add that source, you say use the British Museum? Your making me go in circles, and accusing me of ranking sources, hmm...
You did not "find" the new sources for the Roman Empire, but you added the 6.5 and included an additional reference after I told the 6.5 figure for the Roman Empire and where to find 2 proper sources. And yes picking "booklets", children's books or cached Google pages over the official page pf the British Museum for the Persian empires does display a failure in properly ranking/assessing sources. Moreover contrary to your claim i have no issue with the British Museum, that's why we should use its official webpage which states 7.5.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is what is not accurate about your statement, let me break it down; "Also note that the use of "emergency" sources is reasonable (like what I am forced to do because you will not accept the better 8.0 sources) as long as the article does not have any other (better) sources (what about the British Museum Booklet that had the 8.0 estimate as verified on multiple British websites, plus Sheda Vasseghi's TWO articles, you only mentioned the new one, and for some reason fail to understand the only empire she is referring to is the Achaemenid). But this is not the case for the Persian empire, there are academic resources available (I looked for the best, and found the British one, but you do not accept it) , you just don't want to use them and that is not reasonable at all (now that was a false statement).
The answer is rather clear the official website of British Museum for Persian Empire states 7.5 and not 7.8 or 8.0. Two academic paper we have state 5.x and again the "booklet" is not an appropriate source if we have official website available instead. Your claim that Sheda Vasseghi is only referring to the Achaemenid in her articles is plain false. In the world tribune she is talking about Iran's (complete) pre-islamic history and of course about the Sassanid Empire as well. How you can claim otherwise is beyond me, since it is rather obvious to anybody reading the article. The statement that you are unwilling to use the official website of the British Museum or the 2 academic papers we have, is however quite correct and easily verified in the history of the articles Achaemenid Empire or List of largest empires.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is being updated with the newest sources, like the reliable Sheda Vasseghi, and she is listed in the Iran Heritage website (a British foundation Mr. Redcoat) as one of the few existing Achaemenid professors that spoke at the Achaemenid conference in the British Museum! You can't assume she picked the estimate from somewhere else, or made it up herself (which does not matter both ways, because it is okay for her to do as she is qualified with her credentials), it is even said that she is writing a new book on the Achaemenids, but there is no rule on Wikipedia that is against adding a estimate from a reliable source that is from an article (it seems you don't like articles). You want books, then we can use the reliable 7.8 sources, you want articles, we can use the reliable 8.0 sources.
According the recent World Tribune article Sheda Vasseghi has a master's degree in history (with focus on the Persian empire). Now you're claiming she's actually a professor? Based on what exact source? What we need to avoid any fighting or speculative argument is an a publication in an journal for historic sciences or a history book for adult written by an reputable author. So far you have provided neither. And as long as you can't provide that we stick to the academic sources and paper for the Persian empire we do have and their figures range from 5 to 7.5 million square miles.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Finally I have had it, and made up my mind, I am no longer going to follow unusual advice from just one user. I am going to contact others and get there opinion on this non-issue. Your making a big deal out of something so simple to understand. I am hoping your intentions are good, but this swindling of sources has to stop.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Nobody suggested you were supposed to follow my advice and you rather than me were starting lengthy (and pointless) arguments here instead of on the article's discussion page. In fact you literally indicated that you want to have the discussion here and not on the article's discussion page. Furthermore you are still ignoring the ranking of sources and you still have not produced a single reasonable academic source to support your figure. If you're desperately trying to push mediocre sources over available academic ones then that is your problem and not mine (or that of other authors). You can do that on your private website, blog or wherever but not in Wikipedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I am going to comment here one more time as reply and no more. So please read this carefully. In your first paragraph, I would have to agree with everything (all I was saying that for the average person reading the article there is no way to read Taagepera's paper, because there is no link, there is a link for Turchin though), except that you inspired me to find the second Roman source, but it was I who found it and put it in the article. it was not my failure to prefer the children's book or flyer over the British pdf, because I found the children's book and flyer BEFORE I found the British pdf, so when I found the British pdf I put that in. Secondly, the children's book was a historical fantasy book that won an award, and the flyer say's the exact same thing in the British pdf, indicating that the British pdf was copied on to the flyer to advertise the event in the British Museum (because at the end of the flyer's page, it had the British Museum logo on it).
The answer is rather clear the PDF Booklet (which is from 2008, newer than the 7.5 estimation from 2005) of British Museum's official website for the Persian Empire states over 3 m2 which equals 8.0 (the 7.5 source also say's 2.9 m2 as a conversion). THIS IS WHY YOUR WRONG the "booklet" is not an appropriate source if we have official website available instead THE Booklet is from the official website of the British Museum, you must understand THAT. I don't think you fully read what I said, Sheda Vasseghi plain and clearly said the Achaemenid Empire was approximately 3 million square miles in her Iran Quest article. In the World Tribune she is not talking about Iran's complete history, Iran's complete history is 7,000 years, not 1,300 years, she said 1,300 years before Arab invasion is Achaemenid times like she said (these little things show that it is not good for one to go outside of ones expertise)! NO OTHER (other than the Achaemenid) Iranian empire, not even the Sassanid came CLOSE to 3 m2, let alone OVER 3 m2. You know, I could use Strauss's and the 2 other BOOKS that say it was 3 m2 which equals 7.8, but I will not use them because I got a British Museum source found on 20 different websites including the one from its official website that stated in the year 2008 (the newest and most reliable source) 8.0 for the empire!
Actually I do read fully what you are saying, but you are intentionally ignoring my objection or you are actually incapable of understanding them. Moreover instead of making a precise argument you keep adding rather pointless dis-tractors like "Iran's complete history". The point of that line was that Vasseghi does not state explicitly

that the Achaemenid empire was 8 million square miles. And yes obviously Iranian history did not start with the Persian Empire. Congratulations that you are aware of that as well! Are you also aware that the significance of that rather trivial fact to the argument here is about zero? Yes, it is reasonable to assume that Vasseghi probably had the Achaemenid empire in mind, if you assume it was larger than the Sassanid empire anyhow. However we have ifs and assumes here and Wikipedia articles (in particular contested ones) cannot be based on assumptions but rather on explicit statements or facts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

She teaches at a college, and nearly has a master's degree, a college teacher is refereed to as a professor!
So now she doesn't even have a master now?--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If a historian like her states that the empire was 8.0 in a publication in one journal the Iran Quest, and one news agency the World Tribune, in for historic sciences for adults written by an reputable author, which she is. Then if we don't have a book for the HIGHEST STATED ESTIMATE, IT IS OKAY to use her source, if nothing is of her is available, and there is nothing else available, so for the time being I will use her academic article (which is not against Wikipedia guidelines, but against YOUR guidelines). In another note, I perfered to discuss this here so I can come to agreement with a user that I thought would be reasonable, so after this I WILL take it to the main articles, and if you reply here I will reply there. What I am trying to push here is the HIGHEST REPUTABLE ESTIMATION for the Achaemenid Empire AS STATED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE(s). Sheda Vasseghi writes academic articles, now it does not matter if they are in a news site, or journal, your telling me the news and journal is wrong?
What news and what journal? And yes it does matter very much where the information is published (the author matters of course as well to some regard), if you don't understand that difference then imho you have no clue what the ranking of sources, reputability and peer reviewed publications actually mean.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me. You have 3 proper history books stating 7.8? Why are we having this conversation then and why are you coming up with those totally ridiculous web links as above (3,4). All I asked you from the beginning as one proper history book, but so far you giving me anything but that historic fantasy book for children. So why don't you simply state those 3 others books (more over why didn't you state them already weeks ago)? Even now you simply state, that you have 3 books, but you are not telling me what they are. This is really ridiculous.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We are still talking about different things and you still don't seem to understand the point I'm trying to make. I had looked at all the sources you had posted here (including the bombshell post) and imho the result is the basically the same for all. They are ok as "emergency" sources but they are lower ranked than academic sources and as such are not to be used if (more reputable) academic resources are available. From my perspective you still mix what is convincing to you or me and what is good enough for Wikipedia. I know that the websites with 8 million figures were referring to to exhibition and presumably copied the 8 million from the material of the exhibition, but that again is an assumption. A similar argument holds for the information snippets in the British Museum's own booklet. If you want to cite a proper source, you need to cite the source where those websites or the booklet got the information from. Which could be a detailed (official) catalogue for the exhibition, a complete single article from the exhibition, an official website from the exhibition containing an article, a history book (for adults), a (history) journal publication, an official university website on Persian empire.
Maybe this will help you to get some perspective. Forget about Wikipedia for a second and consider this a term paper for some university class on the Persian empire. Which sources would you cite there? Which would your lecturer accept? Wikipedia articles are no term paper and the notion of reputable/citable sources is somewhat less strict but essentially the same ideas apply. Moreover if some statement or figure is uncertain or subject to debate, then only the most reliable sources count. --Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, I have come to a second COMMON SENSE moment, Imagine if the British Museum was advertising an exhibition on the Roman Empire in 2008, and it said that the empire was 2 million km2=1.2 million m2 at one point in its history. What would happen is that it would receive a lot of complaints, because we all know the Roman Empire was at least 5-6 million km2, so this would be an embarrassing thing to the Museum. Now if the Museum had a over 3 million km2 estimation for the Achaemenids in 2008, would it receive any complaints? Maybe from yourself, but I have yet to see any complaints from people about the new estimation. So what I am saying here is that EVERY statement made by the Museum has to have BEEN peer-reviewed-fact checked BEFORE being published in the Booklet via flyer, So the Museum would not publish anything until they know they are being FACTUAL. This is part of the normal policy of any organization, they will not BLURT out anything that they know is inaccurate, because they know some people will criticize them, why is it so hard for you to understand this?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the most frustrating aspects of the discussion is, that you never seem to answer the actual issue or raised objection. Above you mention 3 books having 7.8 figures and I asked for them. Now you've given me again a lengthy justification for the "emergency" sources but you still haven't told me exact the books. Progress is zero. --Kmhkmh (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

List of of all available 7.8 to 8.0 old and new sources that are both reliable and unreliable

Coming very soon Ignore this...--24.23.160.233 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you simply give me reference to the 3 history books containing those figures. Listing more "unreliable" sources is just distraction and not really helpful. I know that various less reputable sources have the 8 million figure and I agree that this seems to suggest that 8 million is the correct size. However as I pointed out several times already, while this might be convincing enough for oneself it is not good enough for Wikipedia. As I suggested think of this as a term paper for some university class and try to cite only sources that would be acceptable for such a term paper.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I told you several times that the booklet is as best an "emergency" source and a its program announcement on family activity event is cannot be used for a proper citation. The format of the program (whether it is html as a webpage or pdf or the actual printed paper) is totally irrelevant. The point here is, that such programs are not good as citable sources but at best temporary emergency sources. They are clearly lower ranked than any academic paper/website/article on the subject.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
So just to be clear, even though the exhibition is of the British Museum, even though it is a reliable source, even though it is a new estimate by the Museum, it can not be cited because it is not a (actually it is a small article on a website) academic source (its okay to be taught to children, but not for Wikipedia). So Wikipedia Guidelines say that even though we do not know if the 8.0 source is academic or not (on the flyer, on the pdf, on the site [before it was moved], it says contact Claudia Garuti and Katrina Whenham, Katrina Whenham's email ends with britishmusem.ac.uk, where Forgotten Empire link ends with too), we will call it un-academic, and not use the source from the British Museum, but can use the 7.5 source from the British Museum. Am I right?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
An actual real complete article on Persian empire of the British Empire and its exhibition can be cited, but you haven't provided one yet. However preferably in any case would be an academic paper or book.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I am going to display the 7.8 and 8.0 (all reliable) academic articles and books sources here. Also, this is a reminder of what the figures mean; 2.9=7.5, 3.0=7.8, more than or over 3.0 is 3.1=7.9 or 8.0.
So there you go, now note, if your going to judge all these sources, and say because this is that (forgetting that they are all reliable) and that it is this, then your cherry picking sources. And believe it or not, in the next message I will prove to you why the British Museum is causing all our problems (by having three different estimates at one time), and why the Forgotten Empire exhibition and book is contradictory. Finally, I hope this helps.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the books have the problem that the Persian Empire itself is not their real subject and hence their authors might not have any greater expertise on it. However the books by Cartledge and Strauss (possibly the dummy book as well) are definitely good to be cited. If the British museum has different estimates and the newer is 8, of course we should use the 8 million figure, but you need to cite a proper source from the British museum for that and not just program booklets, cached websites, children's books, program announcements. If you have such a source, i.e. a proper complete article from the British Museum, there will be no argument at all nor is there for the books by Cartledge and Strauss. In short you could have avoided this whole lengthy and time wasting discussion by using them from the start (as I repeatedly tried to tell you).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then, I understand now, but the only reason I discussed the British Museum one was just to be sure why I could or could not use them (which is their fault for their many estimates to be frank). So I have a question, could I use the best 7.8 sources which to me is either the Cartledge or Alloway books. Or should I use the last linked source (which is the one with name of Abraham in it)? The author of the book is basically saying the Jews thought they would be able to rule or teach their teachings to an area of over three million square miles, but that later it revealed to be the Persian Empire where they were able to teach it, but not rule it. I'll get to the contradictory Brits after your reply.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
At a quick glance Strauss, Cartledge and Batchelor seem to be the best sources to cite. It is good enough to give the exact citation of the book only (author, title, publisher, year, page) - an internet link is a plus but not required.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism and Inclusionism on Wikipedia

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoy the article. Ironically, it has had to fight for its own existence quite a bit. Tarinth (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes i noticed that and i can't really comment on the original version. However the current version we have now was definiteyl worth the fight.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:24, 30 November 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) 04:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Robert Williams (geometer) incubated

Since you voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer), you probably weren't happy when I deleted it, but you may be happy to hear that per Michig's request on my talk page, I restored the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Robert Williams (geometer). I'm sorry about any inconveniences I caused. — Sebastian 08:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However I'm not really interested in working on that article myself nor do I strongly oppose the deletion. Maybe somebody else will pick it up, moving it to the incubator for now was probably a good idea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem

You are listed as an involved/interested party in a request for mediation. This message is an invitation for you to participate in the discussion here. Please join us in the conversation at your earliest convenience.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello Kmhkmh, remember me? I'm the guy you discussed the size of the Achaemenid Empire with, on the largest empires article, remember 8 million km2 (the last huge message on your talk page)? I have just created my first real account, and want to wish you a happy new year buddy!!! Warmest regards (for putting up with me and helping improve my editing skills).--Eirione (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a happy new year to you as well. Congratulations for finally setting up your own account. I trust, that you will find this offers additional benefits and improves the interactions with other editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation

Can you please indicate whether you're willing to participate in formal mediation for the Monty Hall problem article, either here or at talk:Monty Hall problem#Formal mediation? I think you are an involved party, and per Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, if any involved parties refuse to participate the mediation request will be rejected. The procedure is described at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can post statement regarding my views within the next days, but i won't follow mediation too closely or be very active. Honestly from my perspective it is just not worth spending much time on it. Regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Sorry I somewaht misread your question I thought this was referring to K10wnsta's mediation. So as far as the formal mediation goes, you can list me as am involved party but as i said before i won't be that active.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Monty Hall problem

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

 A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.

Discussion invitation

 Hi Kmhkmh, I would like to invite you to A discussion about Biographies of Living People New editor's lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us:

Ikip 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 00:38, 17 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:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black

Hello. If you have any questions, wish a book (English only), documentation, etc, I can provide at inquiry@edwinblack.com--or phone me. BTW, did you know that the photo above you have is Kitchener himself. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Gens Iulia and Harris

Although I started the category "Prosopography in ancient Rome" and plan to write an article on it someday if nobody else does, I'm not that well-versed in genealogy per se. I get interested in individuals, or in families within a three-generation span of immediate political influence. The editor doing the most in the Republican gentes is P Aculeius, whose work I admire and find a great asset to WP, while at the same time disagreeing with him on some points, mainly having to do with his charming devotion to 19th-century sources. You might ask him. I'll keep my eyes open for reliable online sources for the Julian family tree. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

P Aculeius seems to rely on William Smith, though probably a good source it is from the 19th century, i.e. it doesn not account for new knowledge and assessments of the last 100 years, which however is criticial in the case of inconsistencies in older literature. I was hoping to find some authoritative literature from the last 30 years or so.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo's birthplace

I've gone ahead and made a start on the article, which has been nominated for deletion. Could you please have a look and let your thoughts be known on the matter? Many thanks, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems the deletion nomination is already cancelled. As far as the article in its current state is concerned, it is exactly what I was weary of, because it lacks scholarly sources/assessment. I understand that do not want or cannot do all the work and provide them on your own, but unless somebody else picks up that part up soon, we are definitely left in a grey area bordering the potential pushing of fringe theories, which is not appropriate for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Because the situation is going worst and worst, due to the insinting revert of user Bdelux, I beg you to arbitrate. Thank you.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation resumes

The mediation of the MHP case has re-started. If you wish to participate, would you be willing to check in on the case talk page here? Note that the mediators have asked that participants agree to certain groundrules. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kmhkmh. I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to my new mediation page contributions on my talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 (talk)

Cyrus the Great - notes

Thank you for your message, I will add the details of those documentaries.., plus, there is no doubt about the reliability of those references as they are produced and broadcasted by reliable and renowned studios, whose products are being used as refs throughout the wiki extensively. Thanks. Cyrusace (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you can provide reliable information, that they are reputable broadcasts, they may be used temporarily, I left the history channel documentary for that reason and put it in proper form for a citation. However for article on history subjects it is highly desirable to avoid video documentaries but if possible use scholarly publications and textbooks only. Because many documentaries (even many of those in somewhat reputable tv channels) have tendency to exxaggerate and simplify, which sometimes leads to inaccurate information. Also note that WP guidelines do not allow you to provide youtube links to material which is likely to be a copyright violation. Personally I'm not that picky in that regard, but it is likely that other editors will remove such material.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus The Great

Hi, on this edit, could you tell me where it was justified.Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Justified was the removal by Athenean before. The reintroduced edit by the IP seems to an attempt to circumvent a block and the material seems to be POV pushing with a somewhat unappropriate use of sources (using legal sources for historic content/assessments). It is true that some people labeled the cyrus cylinder as the "first human right declaration". However afaik it is not true, that there are only a few dissenting scholars. In reality it is the other way around most historical scholar view such a labeling as nonsense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:45, 17 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) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jan Appel

Hi, in response to your comment at talk:Jan_Appel a while ago, I would appreciate your opinion on my proposal to scrap the entire "Biography" section and start anew. I think it's the only way out of this mess. Superp (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow - my comment was 2 years ago, I had to look it up first to what the whole thing was about. I was was just commenting on some apparent general problems of the article without being a expert on the subject myself. I don't object to a total rewrite and i suspect the article might not be actively maintained anymore.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate the cleanup. :) [2] --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem mediation

We've restarted the mediation on the Monty Hall problem, with me leading the mediation alongside Sunray, and we're now making some progress. But we're being held back, partially by my own relative unfamiliarity with the dispute (although I've mostly caught up), but mostly by the inactivity of most of the parties to the dispute. Please take this as a request for you to resume participation in the mediation, which I think (although I can't be sure from your comment) you vacated a few weeks ago. It is in all of our interests to get this dispute resolved, to the satisfaction of as many of the participants as is possible. Regards, AGK 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still loosely following it, but imho there isn't much to comntribute right now. If nijdam/rick and martin (with or without glkanter) can find a compromise, I'll go along with that with 99.99% change.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Starting points

K., I'm trying to find out on which points editors do agree. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Starting points. Nijdam (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Crocodillin

Just a note that I have restored this article per a request at the deleting admin's talk page. However, I noticed that you didn't use an edit summary when you proposed this article for deletion. Even though there is no guideline or policy that requires this, I would respectfully request that you use descriptive edit summaries for future PROD requests as it's the courteous thing to do for anybody who may have the article watchlisted. Otherwise they may not know you have a problem with the article until it's deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Credit for your comments on balancing expansion and ease of verifiablity

I am a relatively new editor (my edit counts are artificially large, mostly on a handful of recent articles). As such, I am learning much about editing from comments by experienced editors on talk pages. I incorporated some of your comments almost verbatim in WP:Verifiability standards. I slightly trimmed one of your sentences as the nutshell. I incorporated comments of other editors more abstractly. Is is appropriate for me to credit an idea that is yours somewhere in the essay or its talk page? Thank you for your patience and well reasoned comments. Others seemed not to have thought as hard in forming comments. :) PPdd (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a particular need for crediting anybody when writing an essay. You can see from the version history, who has actively contributed/collaborated and picking up idea from other editors or outside sources doesn't require credit imho.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

copy editing

Hi Kmhkmh! I did some copy-editing of your remarks, correct spelling and the like. I apologize if this was inappropriate. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries and actually thanks. Unfortunately I have sloppy of editing, when i write something fast.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Like many mathematical types, your brain is so fast you are onto the next sentence before your fingers have finished typing the last! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

External Wiki's As Reference

Hi Fellow editor, the use of external wiki's (or any wiki's) as reference is considered bad practice. See WP:Verifiability. Foor example. I create an article with no references on an external wiki and then use it as a reference here. That is absurd right? What I suggest is rather than linking the Wiki, search for references within the Wiki that maybe of value and include those on articles here. If you need assistance than I will help. Thanks --SH 11:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you referring to the Gur Sikh-Temple, if that's the case you got it somewhat wrong. There is no disagreement about external wikis not being suitable as references, that is exactly why the Sikh-wiki was listed under external links and not under references. External links are (high quality) links that contain additional information and useful material that are not available in the article and/or are likely to be of interested for readers. Hoewever they do not need to qualify as references, meaning wikis might be used here in special cases and I wrote you in the version history why this wiki is useful here (extensive information on the temple but most importantly a variety of picture currently not available on Commons).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I would question whether Sikhiwiki is high quality. A cursory glance, and it seems like a propaganda site controlled by one person by the name of Hari Singh. Maybe it should not even be listed as a wiki but a blog. Thanks--SH 14:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think the Sikhiwiki thing is a seperate issue so have moved it to the talk page. I have added several links to the article. Maybe between us we can create our own article on this historical temple?. Thanks--SH 14:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll answer later on the article's talk page. In a nutshell my view is that, the article on the temple is decent and useful to readers, whether it is a blog, a wiki or a (private) website doesm't really matter that much, the quality of the specific link in question matters. Similarly I don't really care whether the wiki is run by a single person hundreds and whether it is a recommendable site on sikhism in general or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

Hi Kmhkmh

I actually have a problem right now - one editor is not using common sense - he cause a lot of trouble a year ago when he was behaving like a two-year-old having a tantrum. I debated going to arbitration, but in the end decided that arbitration would cause even more stress. For that reason I am trying to block him now. As a bonus, the additions that I am proposing might actually be useful guidance.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said far as the content is concerned I agree with your modifications, but as I said I'm afraid we will be getting a string of more and more detailed additions because authors are unwilling to listen to common sense. Hence I don't believe we can handle that by ever more detailed guideline, but we need to enforce common sense (via regular dispute resolution 2nd opinion, mediation, majority of (reliable) editors and if nothing works else works arbitration).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One or other

Could you choose "Circa 1960" or "Born 1959 or 1960" and not both at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I am trying to decide which one of the three is best suited. If people choose two of the three then we have to have another round of !voting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

well i have no preference between those 2, I'm only opposing the third choice.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In that case please restore the two votes, having two is better than none. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
ok --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Gur Sikh Temple. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. SH 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason too, if you have a problem factual observations feel free to point out where they are incorrect and I correct them. With a correct description however you will have to live with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jari River/Purus River

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Before Accusing People of Being Vandals...

I suggest you read this. Thanks --SH 11:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read it? Then you should know that there is no problem with a section title notes. There is however a problem with moving references to external links as you've done it twice now. To emphasize that again References contain the sources which were used to write the article or that can be used to verify it. External links are primarily not used for that but have different purpose (as outlined in the guideline WP:External links).
It also helps to read carefully. I didn't say you've committed vandalism, but just that at some point if your editing pattern continues in that fashion, I will consider it as vandalism (your last 3 edits were adding a link with no direct relation to the article whatsoever and twice falsely moving the references to external links despite being asked not to do so).
You're welcome to contribute to the article properly (see for instance Profitoftruth85's example), but for some reason you've been unwilling to do so until now. Maybe that's just due for getting of on the wrong foot regarding the skihweb link. If that's the case you can have that one. I still see no good reason not to offer it under external links, however it's not really that important for the article, hence it can stay out for all I care rather than having endless argumenst about it.
However if you insist on making pointless or false edits (as the last 3 for instance) in the future then will consider that as vandalism with the according consequences.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Kmhkmh, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Kmhkmh/sandbox4. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Monty Hall problem. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I observe, what I observe. There's no point in not talking straight in particular regarding MHP. --Kmhkmh (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You are required to follow Wikipedia policies on assuming good faith and civility whether you agree with them or not. Continued violations will result in you being blocked from editing. Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Frankly assuming uncivility where there is none is neither particulaly "civil" and nor assuming good faith. So please be so kind and practice what you preach.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein

Just a quick note to let you know that your edits to American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein are being discussed here. GB fan (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'm getting a feeling that the editor posting the request there is not really that familiar with WP goals, rules & regulations. Anyhow I've posted my view on things there now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

comment on movement of mountains with reliable sources]

I guess I can add it now. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least I'm not convinced whether this can be rated as reputable literature. Being published in a book is not good enough, it needs to be a book by a notable expert on the subject published with some renowned/reputable publishing company. That piece of content as well as whole article imho still needs to be looked over by (3rd party) experts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was also published byAmerican Trust Publications, 1978 and Thinkers Library If you need to refer my research to an expert please do so or it can be on the article for the mean time atleast for my hard work unless an objectionable reason is placed. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

American Trust Publications doesn't strike me as a reputable academic publisher either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jhelum river image

Hello there

     I wish to bring to your notice that the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indus_river.svg depicts Indian territorial limits rather incorrectly. It shows Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as a territory of Pakistan. I would appreciate if you would replace it with a correct one.
`

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.176.206 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the the image is correct and is showing the border between Pakistan and India exactly as it is found in current maps, which is good enough for the purpose of this image (displaying the drainage of the Indus river). For illustrations of the Kashmir conflict the map is certainly not appropriate, but it is not designed for that purpose in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please watch this Maurice Buccaille . Since you didnt know about him before. you can learn a brief description in 5 mins. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You got to be kidding ....--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BZII Overhaul

Perfectly willing to help with your overhaul of BZ2, but there's a few things I feel would need the depth of discussion that can't really be reached on wiki talk pages. Version number and game engine have proved to be two, given the size of the article discussion. ~AHadley 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the whole thing has stalled for now, since their was no feedback and I had other things to do. I let you know as soon as i'm going ahead. But in the mean time you could provide some feedback on what content/extensions you'd like to see and maybe additional sources that could be used. Proper sourcing is in particular for the changes since 2000 is potentially a thorny issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Literature contained in the in-game manual states the game takes place during the late 1990s / early 2000s. ~AHadley 11:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As in earth years? That makes no sense unless you consider it as an alternative history story, which should be mentioned then, otherwise it is just confusing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The story does very much run on from the original Battlezone, which had very similar technology and was set in the 60s (not sure if you've played it or not). Taking the technology from BZI into account, there's not much of a leap to get from one to the other; all technological advances can be explained with biometal, and it's revealed that the Scions didn't build Core or the Alchemators, just found them. All dates in the manual are 90s, IIRC. ~AHadley 09:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the dates in the manual, I'm saying they need to be given with an explanation (alternative history, different time scale), because otherwise readers would identify 1995 with the real 1995 in our world which makes no sense or is rather misleading, because that would suggest a situation like for instance in Stargate and is clearly not the case.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an alternative history established in the previous game; the Cold War in space aspect. Unfortunately, the links BZ2 establishes with BZ1, whilst clear to somebody who has played both games, would not be so on their own and the game does not explain its background very well otherwise. The links to BZ1 are all BZ2 gives by way of explanation - an "oh, yeah, it's 2000 and we have all this amazing crap, that is why *points at BZ1*". ~AHadley 08:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So in that case the alternative history settings need to be mention in the ontroduction to the plot before the 1990s information is given, it needs to be understandable for people only reading the BZII article and not knowing it or related games beforehand.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. Maybe we can get this page up to scratch after all. Oh, while I remember; I pulled the mention of the engine since both supporting sources for Zero were invalidated by Ken Miller on the talk page and we don't have any alternatives yet. ~AHadley 12:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talkcontribs)

John Wayne

Wikipedia:Verifiability hasn't been established in regards to Beaver's role. The citation provided was a circular link to another Wikipedia page. Please discuss further changes on the article's discussion page first to avoid potential misunderstandings.

regards, -- LeeUSA (talk) 30 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

ok, now I see at least what prompted your circular comment. However you totally misreading the policy. WP:Circular is about using an external source which itself has used Wikipedia as a source, because then it doesn't really confirm the content in WP independently and hence is useless as a source. However this has nothing to do with internal linking in WP, it is common to internally link authors, that have an article in WP themselves.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)