User talk:Pedant17

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

Contents

Undue edits in Application Layer Gateway[edit]

Recent edits commited by you are surprising and also disappointing. The new contents do not provide any definition of the term at all. They appear as ALGs are found predominantly on Windows. Windows specific details could have been added as a section to the existing article.

Raanoo


Hello, Pedant17. Welcome to Wikipedia.

A few tips for you to start going. (I'll send more if I see that I can help you :-)

  • Just edit stuff off the cuff for a while. We like that!
  • When you have time, check out Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers + the links in there.
  • You can sign your stuff on talk pages with ~~~~ It will convert to your username + the time. "anon" is fine too.
  • If puzzled, put a question on Wikipedia:Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page if it's a very general question.
  • Most of all, have fun but take our work seriously!

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:37 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nice prose[edit]

I'm envious of your language skills, as demonstrated for instance in your edits on nation.

I hope you don't mind my small changes, of which the most notable might be the removal of the link to institution. I like links, but only when they are relevant to the article they appear in. :-) I hope I haven't worsened the language again - at least not too much.
--Ruhrjung 17:25, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, institution needs some work .... Pedant17 12:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Secretary of State for War, you changed the wording from "... was replaced by that of the ..." to "... when the cabinet title became ...". The newly created Secretary of State for Defence replaced the three cabinet positions of First Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary of State for Air and Secretary of State for War, and so the former wording was correct. The office of the Secretary of State for War's was downgraded to become the office of the Minister of Defence for the Army. I have change the text to reflect this. Mintguy 12:57, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice edit[edit]

I liked your recent edit on right wing politics. Cheers Jack 00:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Hi Pedant, reg. your edits in Jakarta Tomcat I notice you've changed a lot of passive voice to active voice. Are you a technical writer by any chance ? You have any views on what voice an encyclopedia should ideally use ? Any reference articles, website links are welcome. Jay 05:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pedant, thanks for copyediting the French law on... article. I cringed when I saw some of the spelling errors (mine) that you picked up. I really must remember to spell check. Thanks again.  :) fabiform | talk 13:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Hi Pedant, can you answer the questions directed at you in talk:Landmark Education. Jay 06:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Corsets[edit]

Dear Pedant17,

I'm surprised that you restored the bit about corsets that I excised, especially as I put a LONG discussion of the reason for the edit in the clothing:talk section. Have you read my comments?

Zora 09:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More on corsets:

I got your message. I have completely revised the clothing section, added some discussion to the clothing:talk page, and added my rant about corsets not necessarily being uncomfortable to the corset article. Perhaps this will resolve all issues?

Zora 19:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clothing taboos[edit]

I'm upset that you've restored, in its entirety, the section on clothing taboos. It's too long and detailed and unbalances the article. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling that you have some emotional investment in such transgressions. It's ... um ... squicky in an article supposed to be neutral in tone.

When I have time to write the section on clothing maintenance, I think most of the topics you mention could be covered in one paragraph, in a more distanced way.

I will refrain from cutting out your additions until I write the new section. Which won't be till after Saturday, when I take the OS section of my A+ test.

BTW, while some of the edits you made to my prose were good -- made it crisper -- some I thought made it worse. But I'm going to stay away from them until we hash out the matter of the "clothing taboos".

Zora 05:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


OK, I did the revisions. I wrote the section on clothing maintenance (and then enormously expanded the article on laundry) and then I added a para to the top where I talk about counter-culture clothing and link to beatnicks, hippies, punks, etc.

Then I deleted the clothing taboo section.

I hope you'll feel that your concerns are addressed by the changes.

Zora 08:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Voting of Corporations?[edit]

Hi Pedant17.

You added a remark on Corporation implying to me that Corporations can vote in some jurisdictions. I've asked for examples on the discussion page Talk:Corporation and out of curiosity would be really interested to know where this is true. Maybe you had somthing particular in mind and could contribute it? Thanks -- S.K. 14:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rugby Football[edit]

"And compare the name of Ellis Park in Johannesburg: one of the sacred sites of rugby union." – Snigger, So no POV in that statment then! I suppose it could be argued that as it is at around 3000m above sea level, it is closer to heaven than any other first class rugby pitch. Philip Baird Shearer 06:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Welsh sing "Bread of heaven" not "close to heaven". If you want the home of the gods you have to go to HQ ;-)

I have written an additional piece on Professional sports#The English class system of the 1800s and professional players, which tries to explain the class attitudes of Victorian gentlemen and how that contributed to the split in Rugby. I am not happy with some of the wording and would appreciate it if you would edit for me. Philip Baird Shearer 22:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for a job well done. Philip Baird Shearer

The business and economics forum[edit]

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 19:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Sociology of clothing[edit]

Just to notify you that someone had added to that article that you created. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:14, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

(No Relation, Again)[edit]

Salutations, Pedant17!
I've seen you around and just wanted to drop a line to say hello because of our similar handles--I did the same with User:Pedant earlier, thus the "again" in the header. If I can be of help with your articles--see my user page and User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles for what I'm working on--do let me know. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 17:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Full stops (star (disambiguation))[edit]

Hi, I would have expected a pedant to add punctuation marks. Removing full stops from sentences seems rather strange to me. Could you explain? All the best, <KF> 11:04, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure whether I had missed out on some general rule for disambiguation pages. If that's not the case, it's completely up to you to leave the page as it is or re-add the full stops. Have a nice day, <KF> 12:03, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

RFA candidate[edit]

Salve, Pedant17!
I nominated myself for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2 and would appreciate your vote as you cast one in my earlier nomination. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Copyright Clearing[edit]

Hello. You edited the zsync article a bit. I am the author of that article and I have previously published it on my site Wikinerds.org (not related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia). Your copyedits, if they are copyrightable, are now released under the GFDL since you edit on Wikipedia. It may happen that someday I may want to use your copyedits under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license on my site. You will get proper attribution as "Pedant17" or with your full legal name, if you prefer. Here and here you can check the original article. If you agree with the CC-licensing of your copyedits, if they are copyrightable, please contact me using my talk page. Thank you. NSK 09:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw your note in your user page; I respect your decision and I will not ask you again about any licensing issues. However, your use of the word "commercialisation" makes me to believe that you have partial understanding of copyright issues and the GFDL and CC licenses and perhaps you misunderstood their contents. I am not a lawyer and I give no legal advice, but I have read the GFDL and CC licenses and I happen to be able to understand some limited areas of the copyright, trade mark and patent law. Please note, also, that I have met RMS in a speech and that I like what he does very much (my computer has an FSF sticker on it, I got it from Stallman himself, I have placed a GNU icon on my site and I have signed against software patents in Europe), but I also like Creative Commons and Professor Lessig. Both GFDL and CC-By-SA-2 allow commercialisation. I can get any GFDL material and sell it without giving any royalties to its original author, and the same can be done with CC material. The differences between GFDL and CC are mainly cultural (ideological) and legal. The main legal differences are that in GFDL you must redistribute the whole text of the license, but in CC you just can place a reference to the CC website and license name. In GFDL there are very effective protections regarding the file format of the source. In GFDL, also, there is a requirement to keep a changelog. The reasons I don't use GFDL in some of my texts is the requirements of the license text redistribution and the maintainance of the changelog. CC is more light-weight, but I would prefer to use GFDL for a book, while I find CC very useful for small articles and wikis. What is important to understand is that commercialisation is allowed with both licenses. Also note that there is a CC license which disallows commercial uses, it is called CC-By-SA-NC-2. NSK 04:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed this in passing "I remain (as yet) unconvinced of the merit of opening any loopholes to the potential commercialisation of my contributions. Accordingly, I submit them under the GNU Free Documentation License only.". You should be aware that, as NSK points out above, the GFDL already permits others to commercialise your contributions, although the nature of the license is such that the motivation to do so is greatly reduced (that is, it's difficult to sell something when you can get it for free). The Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license is essentially the same deal, but it's a much clearer license. — Matt Crypto 13:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edict of Nantes[edit]

I noticed that you changed all those waffles and passive tenses to good lean and strong active constructions, and I just want you to know that such labors do not go unnoticed and unappreciated! Thanks! --Wetman 07:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Francisca[edit]

I'm not quite sure what the point of your edits were. You changed a correctly capitalised link to an incorrectly capitalised one, you changed the standard abbreviation "c." to the non-standard full form "circa", you said that the axe has a distinctive shape without saying what it was, and you changed a perfectly clear sentence to another perfectly clear sentence, differing only in inessential matters of style. Why? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The link didn't show up with a capital in the sentence, as it was piped "reenactor" — thus changing the capital made no difference to the text.
True. Sometimes I edit for the LOOK in trhe source text as well, where an upper-case letter can jar.
But when that means a caprialisation pipe, you're sacrificing efficiency for a minor (and subjective) improvement of what readers won't see. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Your argument concerning "circa" would make more sense if you'd changed it to "about" — but in any case, "c." (or sometime "ca") is used thoughout Wikipedia, and this is the first time I've seen "circa" used (though doubtless there are other places). Moreover, as I said, the abbreviation is standard; changing it is rather like changing "etc." to "et cætera" or "e.g." to "exempli gratia".
I take your pioint on the expansion of "etc." But I persist in disliking abbreviations in general, and ambiguous abbreviations (especially c. but also ca.) in particular. Circa appears as an English word (albeit semi-acclimatised) in the OED, and appears to me much more helpful to those readers of Wikipedia who do not have habitual familiarity with standard historiography.
Many people know what "c." means, because it's the standard term, but would be confused by "circa", which isn't. And anyone who didn't know what "c." means would surely not know what "circa" means. I can't see any ambiguity, incidentally. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The illustration and the text seemed to me amply to convey the right impression of the axe, so gesturing vaguely at a distinctive shape still seems unnecessary at best.
OK.
  • I can only say that I registered no difference in clarity between the the versions.
Thanks.

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Pedant17 22:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

potato fruits[edit]

Just to say cheers for cleaning up the stuf I wrote on potato fruits much clearer and wikidified.Andham2000 15:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Your copyediting skill is great[edit]

I'm most impressed with the cleanup you did at Ghost (software). I have removed the word alleged in the first para, as Ghost really was called "General Hardware-Oriented Software Transfer", and bore this title in versions up until the Symantec acquisition. There is no doubt that the full name was designed to provide a catchy acronym, but I can't be sure whether the name Ghost ever existed before the full name did.-gadfium 01:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice edit[edit]

Good work on Myxozoa. The article is in much better shape than it was before you found it. The Myxobolus cerebralis-related articles are sort of my babies, and I'm always delighted to see them improved. You may want to put in more precise edit summaries, though--"copyedits" sounds like you just changed a few words.

Thanks, Dave (talk) 12:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pedant 17 is doing some ridiculous (and in addition wrong) pseudopedantry[edit]

Pedant 17 seems to think that the merit of prose is inversely related to the number of uses of existential words: "is", "are" "was" "there are" "there is", etc. So when he-or-she undertakes a massive edit, he-or-she tries to strip out the "there are"'s, "is"'s, etc. and substitutes "elegant variation" by coming up with lots of diverse verbs and artificial locutions. Typical would be: ORIGINAL TEXT BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE SUBJECT: "There is a bell tower on the village square." PEDANT 17 EDITS IT STYLISTICALLY TO: "Astride the village square looms a bell tower." Not only is the latter not "better" stylistically, it is also likely to be wrong unless Pedant 17 knows specifically how the tower relates to the square. (This example is imaginary, but fairly represents many of Pedant 17's edits.) Pedant 17 is sacrificing factual accuracy for a bogus notion of good English style (one properly lambasted in Elements of Style under "elegant variation").

Arrrgh.

Here's a real example of Pedant 17's bad pedantry:[edit]

The original text was:

"A native of Axim, Anton Wilhelm Amo (1703 - 1756) was the first black philosopher ..." Pedant 17 rewrote it as:

A native of Axim, Anton Wilhelm Amo (1703 - 1756) classes as the first black philosopher ..."

"classes as"?????? That's not good English, nor exactly bad English, it's not even English! Is Pedant 17 a native speaker of English? "classes as" could be some transitive verb of which Amo was the subject maybe... [only joking].

kopp[edit]

I'm Drew Kopp, the author of the paper on the production of space in the Landmark Forum, and I think you are the one who put the link to it on the Wikipedia entry for LE.

First of all, thanks for doing that. Second, I'd be interested to hear feedback you might have on the paper.

kopp@email.arizona.edu

Drew

United States[edit]

Why United States of America instead of just United States? WikiDon 23:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

But everybody I have met just says, Mexico, Brazil, and the United States or USA, not "are you from the United States of America". Shouldn't that work if it used in conversation internationaly? WikiDon

Landmark Education[edit]

Hi Pedant17. IMO your recent edits to the LE page constitute a flagrant violation of the NPOV policies. How can we move towards a consensus on this? What is your POV on the issue and what is the basis for that? DaveApter 13:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again - Still no answer from you about what is your own view regarding Landmark... Or any suggestions as to how we can work together to produce a genuinely encyclopedic article in the subject. Is this what you really want? Accusing the various people who revert your edits of vandalism doesn't really further the debate. Have you considered that they get reverted because many view them as far from unbiased? Perhaps it would be more helpful if you just made one or two changes at a time rather than being wholesale, and then engaged in debate on the discussion page to reach a consensus?

A couple of questions:

  1. You refer on the talk page to "the pseudo-respectability of statistics from Landmark-sponsored surveys" - are you suggesting that there is something fraudulent about these reports? If not what is your point? If so, what is your evidence, what do you think are accurate estimates of these views, and on what basis?
  2. You heavily edited my summary of the courses ("...investigations into the ways we make decisions in response..." etc. What was it that you objected to? This is a factual description of what the courses are. What is it that you see as controversial in this statement?

How recently have you read the NPOV policy page? best wishes DaveApter 09:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Here's my NPOV take on Landmark Education:

Has historical underpinnings from est and the est training by Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A). WE got his ideas for the est training from Scientology, Sufi, Zen ond other disciplines. Later, when WE&A was broken up (due to a 60 minutes article about WE), WE&A was sold to the employees, and was later named Landmark Education (LE). LE offers courses on living life. People who do these courses are very enthusiastic about them and that enthusiasm leads to pissing off others. The course syllabus is well described on their web site. There is no belief system and no dogma. Fundamentals appear to be from philosophers Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Waiting to see if this NPOV sticks ....

-anon

Pendant! Lets chat! Although people other than Werner, claim to know the source of his ideas, You can simply ask his friends or call Brian Regner. Werner, and Brian spent 10+ years just looking at what worked, and what didn't. ( Zen works well, Sufi a bit less, but the whole Scientology/Religion thing, using similar terms in very different ways, didnt work. Can you see that the material that is used only as examples , the core work being created by the program design team, is NOT where he got his ideas, but only uses them as examples? i.e. Zen in flavor? )--Artoftransformation (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to quote a program leader for landmark education:

"How much more powerfull is the Landmark Forum than est?" -ArthurT

"How much more powerfull are computers? - Linda Zarak, Forum Leader

I have studied, intensely the speed of which Landmark Educations courses, especially the Landmark Forum, and the Landmark Advanced Course develop. ( i.e. to measure the speed at which the program design division implements courses ). I can see that the courses develop at a very rapid pace, becoming more effective and more powerful with each iteration, and in my opinion, they double in power every year, developing faster than traditional microprocessors. Ask people who have been around the courses for a few years, and they will tell you the same thing. Again, this is my opinion, but I believe that it is shared by many people.
But to Qualify Ms Zaraks statement assume that the est training started in 1971, microprocessors were at the level of the Intel 4004, Today, we have Quad core Processors about a billion times larger, and about a million times faster, and at least 100,000 times as powerful. I would imagine that, from what I have seen, with Landmark Education's courses moving faster than microprocessors, that the power and value of the courses has increased also, and like microprocessors, make previous generations/iterations obsolete rather quickly. --Artoftransformation (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry the Navigator[edit]

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Slovakia[edit]

Thank you for your copyedits -- there are not many contributing editors there and your edits are certainly a valuable contribution. Cheers Jbetak 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

I appreciate your determination in making the Landmark page better. Odb 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate your efforts and determination. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.15.50 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry[edit]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

fear of the verb "to be"[edit]

Kindly see the Erik the Red Talk page for my complaint about your editing and especially your dread of the passive voice, with its sometimes strained results. --Cubdriver 11:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans[edit]

Hello Pedant17, I have seen you last change at the Indo-Europeans article. Please don’t understand me wrongly, but I think this “only language specific” definition is outdated. Your explanation represents the typical classical point of view. I am not a professional in this topic, but if I watch the great wikipedia (with the different languages) an ethnic aspect seems not so impossible or absurdly. Especially in the English language area, there is often talking about some “racial” relations. Please consider, I absolutely don’t support extreme views & theories, it’s just an observation.

However, the much more irritating thing is the paradox statement The term may apply to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. How this can be? In this case the expressions “Indo-Europeans” and “Proto-Indo-Europeans” would have to be the same. And this makes absolutely no sense. Actually the English wikipedia is the only one which has such an inconsistency definition.

As supposed, if I watch the different wikipedias, my explanation in this theme is actually:

  • Indo-Europeans describe the today's (and rarely also ancient) speakers of an Indo-European language. This term is sometimes also used to define some ethnic, physical or even “racial” parameters, but these last opinions are still highly controversial.
  • Proto-Indo-Europeans describe the (original) speakers of the (one) Proto-Indo-European language (comparably with Latin, which is the mother language of all Romanic languages). Thus, it defines the speakers before the splitting in many newer (Indo-European) languages. Additional this term also explain a hypothetical ethnic group. However this is not all over 100% accepted.

--lorn10 23:52, 06. April 2006 (CET)

Collective bargaining[edit]

Just one more on the list here to say thanks for your copyediting. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 10:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible need for Administrator Intervention at The Hunger Project[edit]

There is a need for more balance, and both positive AND negative sides to be represented in this article on The Hunger Project.

Is there a way that we (Smeelgova, Descendall, Enkido, Pedant17, Rj), can go to Wikipedia Administrators to resolve the positively-biased one-sided view that Jcoonrod purports to keep posting up on The Hunger Project, and also complain about his repeated deletions both on the article and discussion pages?Smeelgova 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Pedant17, I liked your use of formatting on The Hunger Project, I think the article is finally coming together in a coherent way, and reflecting a more balanced positive and negative approach. Thank you. Smeelgova 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Smeelgova. I think it may help to separate the bland summary introduction from the past situations and from the current scenario - we can then work on each individually, with fewer clashes about image and reputation. Having a separate history section also gives us a place in which to trace -- in as much detail as required -- how the former situation turned in to the present one. We could do with a lot more citations to follow this. - Pedant17 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On that note, I've added a Historical Timeline section to The Hunger Project article. I've sourced much of the material, and used language that states information in a simple, bland, factual, and NPOV manner. You are correct that we should work on more citations. Smeelgova 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/(The Hunger Project)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedical (talkcontribs)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

meme edit[edit]

Hi. please refrain from making such significant changes in a single edit without an edit summary. 2-3 edits with an explnation is much better, and you are more likely not to get reverted.

RFAR[edit]

Quoting user --Jcoonrod, from my talk page :

I have lodged a RfAR against you at [1]--Jcoonrod 15:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my response on --Jcoonrod's talk page, I would much rather debate the content of the article itself, rather than shift the focus to a personal debate around his and my various inappropriate actions over the past 3 years and 1 month, respectively. I admit to and apologize for any inappropriate behaviour that I have done, which is not related directly to debating the content and discussion surrounding the article The Hunger Project, and I would much rather move forward with the ongoing Mediation Process/Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hunger Project, rather than skip directly to Arbitration/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Yours, Smeelgova 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • After looking through the Arbitration policies, it appears that you can simply add yourself to the Arbitration Request as another "involved party", at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. In this manner, you can then make a Statement, and participate in the evidence sections of the arbitration.Smeelgova 18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jane Grey Article[edit]

I appreciate many of the edits that you recently made to the Lady Jane Grey article. Many of your edits were corrections of my over-fond use of passive voice. Those changes are entirely appropriate. However, several of the changes, though seemingly simple, alter the meaning of the concept I was attempting to convey. For example: under "Claim to the Throne," my original sentence read, "There was also concern that Mary favored for herself a Spanish marriage ...." In removing the passive voice you changed the sentence to "English Protestants also expressed concern that Mary favored for herself a Spanish marriage ...." While it is true that many of those expressing concern were Protestant, many ardently-Catholic English ALSO feared a foreign Spanish marriage. Your wording limited the fear to just Protestants, which is historically incorrect. I re-edited that phrase to simply "Many Englishmen also ...." Under "Deposal," you changed "the treatment her mother (Catherine of Aragon) had received at the hands of Henry VIII" to "whom her husband Henry VIII had treated shabbily." Some Tudor-era persons might have considered Henry's treatment of Catherine "shabby," but many did not. In fact, many felt he was overly generous in his settlement with her. Such colloquial and value-laden terminology as "shabby" should never be used in historical writing unless it is a direct quote from a primary source and fully cited to that source. I have therefore re-edited that wording also. PhD Historian 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to quibble with your amendments to my own writing in the Jane Grey article. I do not like the change you made in the sentence about Henry VIII having annulled Catherine of Aragon. My original phrasing was composed as it was in order to closely associate the concepts of sympathy and annullment. In my opinion, your choice to separate to within parentheses the issue of annullment makes it less clear WHY some people sympathized with Catherine. I strongly prefer my original phrasing. The second change you made, in the text accompanying the link to my own website, is not quite factually correct. "Wikifying" the text and creating more internal links by using the linked word "recently" misrepresents the time frame, depending on how you define "recently." In the "diff" markup "recently" is accompanied by the phrase "as of 2006." The truth is that the Fitzwilliam Museum changed the identification of the sitter in their painting in early 2005, and my article on the painting was published in 2005 as well, not 2006. Likewise the Streatham portrait was identified as potentially of Jane Grey in 2005, but the article was not published until 2006. "Recently" makes it sound as though those things occurred just a few months ago. Perhaps if, in editing any text, you first consulted with the original author of that text, these issues might not come up. Frankly, one of largest negative aspects of Wikipedia is its reliance on what I call "writing by blind committee." Numerous people, some authoritative and some not, write a given article in bits and pieces without the kind of close collaboration needed to produce a result of good quality that is also completely factual. The result is sometimes far less than optimal. That is one reason why I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia when writing research papers: it has no reliable quality controls. Elegant grammar is fine, but if the grammar editing negatively impacts the quality of the conceptual content, what is the advantage of elegant grammar? PhD Historian 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger[edit]

This arbitration case is close and the decision has been published at the above link.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new pedantic overlords[edit]

Thank you for your extensive copyedit of my discussion of the works of Friedrich Nietzsche --GoodIntentionstalk 06:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellis Duell[edit]

You may be interested in commenting, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Duell.Smeelgova 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Intriguing Edits[edit]

Have a look over at the article you had edited previously and let me know what you think RE: putting a brief bit about origins in the beginning, and the campaign to summarily remove any perceived negative information even if it's backed up by multiple cited sources in blockquoted citation referenced format. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

Re edits to that article -- I wouldn't want to overload the introductory paragraphs with too much background up front. But as far as deleting sourced material goes (especially deleting quotes of so-called doubtful encyclopedic merit), I believe in general that the more sourced material we include the better. If size seems excessive, we can readily fork off and link new articles, such as "LE and the law" or "List of people associated with LE".
I like your article on Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous, by the way -- but I suspect we should change the capitalization to Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. -- Have you noticed that access to both linked copies of the film on the Internet have gone dead recently? -- Pedant17 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the commentary. Why do you think we should change the capitalization to Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous? Feel free to make some edits on the LE page and I'll see how your flow goes from there. Yes, I did notice the links are down, most likely a legal threat from LE, and most probably not any sort of problem with France 3. It's an interesting saga to follow. Yours, Smeelgova 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC).
You can email me for more information. Yours, Smeelgova 22:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Working Man's Barnstar[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I, Smeelgova, award this barnstar to Pedant17 for all of the great copyediting and general pedantry. Thank you. Smeelgova 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(feel free to add to your user page if you like). yours, Smeelgova 02:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm still relatively unfamiliar with this. I think it's just recognition, not a nomination. Yours, Smeelgova 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

FYI[edit]

You may wish to take note and/or comment:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous Yours, Smeelgova 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

NOTE to Wikipedia Administrator's trolling to find this message, as User:Pedant17 has already voted, I am not "recruiting votes", I simply want to thank him for his commentary. Is that alright? SIGH. Dear Pedant17, on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous discussion, you wrote: "Allegations of a smear campaign may overlook the addition to Wikipedia by Smeelgova of a large body of well-referenced work of wide and abiding interest to readers.". Thank you, thank you for that, especially the well-referenced part. Sigh, you don't know how much I need support/compliments like that these days, you really don't. Thanks so much for the kind words, I've worked hard to back up my additions with well-referenced as you say, citations. Truly Yours, Smeelgova 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

FYI[edit]

  • Still not sure whether I'm leaving Wikipedia, or taking a break until others stop personally attacking me, but there are new developments at Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous that might interest you. More info at [2]. Yours, Smeelgova 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Minor revert[edit]

Hi Pedant17,

While I thought most of your changes to the Landmark Education article were improvements, I decided to revert the changes you made to the "Legal disputes" section. The two versions are:

  • Landmark has participated in a range of legal disputes, both as a defendant (against course participants who have claimed psychological harm) and as a plaintiff (alleging defamation against individuals or organizations who have published statements critical of its methods or content).

and

  • Landmark has participated in a range of legal disputes, with roles including that of a defendant (for example, against course participants who have claimed psychological harm); and frequently of a plaintiff, often alleging defamation against individuals or organizations who have published statements critical of its methods or content, etc.

The reasons I have reverted from the bottom one (your version) to the top one (my version) are as follows:

  • Occam's razor--mine is shorter :)
  • It is inaccurate to say "roles including that of", since Landmark has never been involved in a legal case where it was neither defendant nor plaintiff (to my knowledge).
  • "Against course participants" is not an example; it is the basis of every case for which Landmark has been a defendant.
  • Landmark has not "often" alleged defamation; it has alleged defamation in every case in which it was the plaintiff (to my knowledge).
  • I am not aware of anyone who has published statements critical of some aspect of Landmark that cannot be considered either its methods or content.
  • The grammatical structure of the original was symmetric.

While your copyediting is generally appreciated, do please be careful that you don't change the meaning, or make things unnecessarily vague. Ckerr 14:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education litigation[edit]

FYI.

User:Sm1969 is removing your cited material from the article, claiming "guilt by association": First time, Second time.

Issue brought to talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Your edits on Alien[edit]

Hi. I'm posting here in regards to your several copyedits on the Alien (film) page. I'm sorry to say that I've just reverted for your edits for perhaps the fourth time now, and I thought I should leave a little reasoning here justifying my actions. While I admire your input and efforts, I believe your edits only make the text seem more vague, awkward, or bloated (sorry, I can't think of a better term).

For example, the opening sentence, "Alien is a 1979 science fiction / horror film directed by Ridley Scott, from an original story by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett" you always change to "Ridley Scott directed the 1979 science fiction / horror film Alien from an original story by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett". Doesn't it sound more professional to make the article's title the first word in the sentence? With your wording, it sounds like the article is about Ridley Scott, not the film itself. I've also seen you add some "in order to"'s when just "to" would suffice. Also, you linked [[box office]]<nowiki/> as <nowiki>[[box office|box-office]]. That doesn't sound right.

Again, certainly not all of your changes deserved reverting, but they were so scattered in one edit that reverting was all I could do. Again, thanks for your help, and I hope you understand my reasoning.--CmdrObot 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Kubrick (talkcontribs) 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

French spelling in italics in Cults and governments[edit]

Hi:

Your bot appears to have changed constitue to constitute in the Cults and governments article. Good English but bad French: the quote appeared encased in two sets of two single quotes as a a sign of its Frenchness. Not enough to protect it? -- Pedant17 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry about that, I'll add the article to my exception list so it doesn't happen again. I'm afraid that correctly recognising stuff that is and isn't in quotes is very tricky to get right given the freeform nature of wiki markup, and the fact that single quotes are actually used as wiki syntax. As the human supervisor, I should have recognised the French and left it alone, but I guess the occasional article slips through. Again, my apologies. Cheers, CmdrObot 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the publicity advertising begin...[edit]

  • I have decided to take the article Landmark Education off of my watchlist, so it is possible that the page will soon begin to look like a replica of their own Corporate Web site, publicity advertising for their coursework. Just wanted to let you know. I hope you have been doing well. Yours, Smee 05:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Your edits were summarily reverted...[edit]

  • Your edits DIFF to Werner Erhard were summarily reverted, by User:Saladdays. I have restored your edits and opened a new subsection for User:Saladdays to explain on the talk page. Your comments would be most appreciated there. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Your new article suggestion[edit]

... was a very intriguing idea. You said: One article worth setting up (and including in the navigational box) might address the very question as to the links or lack of links between Erhard/est and Landmark Education. This could concentrate on the known links and analyze the reasons for Landmark Education's apparent desire to suppress the connection -- separately from the sacred "Landmark Education" article (with its hide-bound kowtowing to contemporary commercialism), but firmly linked to it. It would also provide an account of the question "whatever happened to est" -- a valid and intriguing supplement to discussion of Erhard Seminars Training. -- Pedant17 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose would be a good idea for the name of this new article? Smee 06:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Landmark Education[edit]

Please don't bring the spin war that Smee was waging onto the Landmark Education site. I see above Smee encouraging you to do that using clearly POV language. I am not asking you to suppress yourself but to work with us to make a strong article that references what is so not the spin.

Secondly, Be careful on a talk page of inserting your comments in the middle of conversations rather than at the end. Talk pages are supposed to be linear. In two occasions you put your comment after the text someone used and BEFORE their signature. I am sure that wasn't intentional and I corrected it by placing the sig back next to thier text. Please be more careful in the future! Thanks! Alex Jackl 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Pedant! Thank you for your response!

You wrote:

As I recall, spin-wars have raged continuously in the Landmark Education article since well before User:Smee apeared on the scene. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Although Spin seems to have been endemic to the page for a long time Smee was so prolific and so reactionary that he was blocked several times and he mercilessly pressed a POV that Landmark was a cult and was somehow still connected to Werner Erhard in some kind of sinister fashion. In all due respect that is in no way the consensus of editors but he was relentless and he wore people out. It wasn't until he was 3RR's and the page was protected that suddenly editors started to participate again in dialog about the content. Hence my comment since I sensed the same flavor of POV in the language of some of your responses. Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote:

I see above Smee encouraging you to do that using clearly POV language.

You responded

I missed that. Could you please provide a specific quote so I can tell what you referred to? -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the note Smee left on your talk page entitled: "Let the publicity advertising begin..." in which she said: "I have decided to take the article Landmark Education off of my watchlist, so it is possible that the page will soon begin to look like a replica of their own Corporate Web site, publicity advertising for their coursework. Just wanted to let you know. I hope you have been doing well. Yours, Smee 05:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)." Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You said:

Any "what is so" ranks as unpardonable spin in my book -- hence the importance of providing sources and accurate quotations and counter-factuals. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. "What is so" is the "facts", the what actually happened and is true by a reasonable test of reality. Providing sources is great so long as you are moving forward the purpose of the article and not trying to undermine something or prove a point. "Counter factuals " is the kind of thinking that WIkipedia strives to avoid. We are not countering anything, we are supporting encyclopedic content. You know what I mean. Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You said:

-- That said, I would like to see a more thread-conscious technology available for Wikipedia talk-pages. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree!!!!! Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wilco. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - If you have further stuff around the Landmark Page I have confidence that in the new spirit that is present there everything will get worked out. Thank you! Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

a stand for the possibility of the creation of a new article[edit]

a stand for the possibility of the creation of a new article within the possibility of integrity and willingness to be free and open to the idea of freedom of an individual's full self-expression and leadership and the transformation of the planet and being within the possibility of enrolling others such as to touch move and inspire them to the possibility of registration, that is, registration in more coursework...

  • Actually, this brings up the interesting point that some of these main articles Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, have warnings that they are getting to long, when you go to edit them. Some of the material could be split off into a bunch of new articles, actually... I have a couple in mind, and have found a bunch more sources. We shall see... Smee 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you...[edit]

... for starting the stub of the article Holiday Magic. It is fun finding the citations on this one, there is some interesting interwoven history here... Smee 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

FYI[edit]

  • You may be interested in newly created article, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. Smee 08:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
    • If you have time, you may wish to apply your pedantry/copy-editing skillz to the newly created article, Scientology and Werner Erhard, which is currently backed up by (29) citations to referenced material. I am sure that it can use some corrections here and there with regard to your unique copy-editing abilities. Smee 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Question[edit]

If nominated to be an administrator, would you accept? Smee 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Please do not....[edit]

...intersperse your comments into other editor's comments at AfDs. If you want to engage in discussions, do that at the discussion page.

I have removed your comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th nomination). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep doing the same thing again and again. Please do not type your comments interspersed with other editors' comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you there?[edit]

Hi Pedant17,

You don't seem to participate much in your discussion page, so I don't know if you read it. I suppose it will soon become clear whether or not you do.

Your contributions to the Landmark Education mediation case have done a great disservice to your espoused point of view; at times your behavior makes me wonder if you're actually a pro-Landmark editor trying to make anyone who "agrees" with you look bad.

The reason I started editing the Landmark page was to change the tone of the article away from being "There is nothing wrong with Landmark, and no one thinks there is except for some crackpots who have since retracted", so in that sense we have the same aim. However your writings are so personally vindictive, so blatantly impartial, and so long-winded that no one can seriously agree with you.

Unless it is your intention to make yourself and anyone who supports you look like a fool, I suggest you change. Ckerr 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain image usage question[edit]

Image 1, United States Tax Court, diagram of Werner Erhard tax transactions.
Image 2, United States Tax Court, diagram of Werner Erhard tax transactions.
Image 3, United States Tax Court, diagram of Werner Erhard tax transactions.

What is your opinion regarding the usage of this public domain image on the project. It is a filing from a United States Federal court case, the case itself was appealed unsuccessfully from the District Court, to the Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the Federal case where the image came from, discusses directly both the organizations Werner Erhard and Associates, Erhard Seminars Training, and of course the party in the case, Werner Erhard. Your thoughts/comments would be appreciated. There are some individuals intent that these images not be shown in any of these articles directly relevant to the case, anywhere on Wikipedia... Yours, Smee 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

  • And it now looks like these Public Domain images are again not available on any of the above named articles. Smee 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

Hello[edit]

Hello Pedant17. Regarding my comments on the medication page for LE, here is a little extra explanation I started including but realised was too far off the topic, especially given the amount of noise being generated there. If you feel like explaining this to me or why my perception is wrong, please do so on my talk page. I'd appreciate it. As one example of the point I am trying to make, the first that struck me and also a good one since many would argue that they remain a cult: the Mormons are clearly allowed absolute control over their own articles on wikipedia, and are able to restrict opposing contributors to evangelical protestants who are willing to include them in the club or at least avoid any real criticism, despite the obvious doctrinal problems (simply something I came across looking at random pages). That is almost a direct paraphrase of the statement by a Mormon editor which I came across at the time. This starts with the major religions, where PoV pushers really have to be permitted, I suppose, but it does seem to trickle down to all levels, and seems to be the thinking that is tacitly used by e.g. the LE people to avoid facing the CoI problem. Hope I've made what I'm trying to say clearer.ERTalk 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Network Status Gathering System"[edit]

A tag has been placed on "Network Status Gathering System", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. OfficeGirl 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice editing on the anti-cult movement article! Wowest 12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Werner Erhard MedCab[edit]

See the page and add yourself, per guidance provided by SebastianHelm Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • AND...you need to respond to me via e-mail right now. I would have e-mailed you earlier, but you no have address. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Email forwarding[edit]

In Email forwarding#Automated client-based forwarding you wrote

Many email clients allow their users to configure a setting to forward messages on arrival, so that one's email can get forwarded as soon as it arrives. One can also configure some email-program filters to automatically forward certain emails immediately after downloading.

I'm not aware of any such client. Would you please add a <ref>?

In particular, it is not clear how those clients forward messages: Do they preserve the original sender? Do they add Resent-Sender and similar headers? And how do they become aware that a new message arrived? Do they work with IMAP (possibly using IDLE on an open connection), or POP3 (polling every given number of minutes), or do they monitor a local mailbox, possibly using gamin, fam, polling or some biff-like service triggered by the MTA. In some cases, the relevant behavior would be better understood as an MTA extension rather than regular client-based forwarding. Perhaps, the subdivision between automatic and manual client-based forwarding is somewhat misleading, as the correct distinction should be based on what kind of messages are being injected into the transport system.

Thanks for amending my English (I'm Italian.) I tried to simplify some phrases further.

ale 11:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Two issues in the Interpersonal relationship article[edit]

Hi CmdrObot

On 2007-11-09 at 19:10 your bot made two changes to the article Interpersonal relationship with the comment:

(sp (2): an other→another, octobre→October)

The octobre text formed part of a French-language bibliographic reference -- anyone looking it up automatedly will probably want to find the French name/form of the month, but I don't know whether we have a standard policy on such matters.

The second change poses a more subtle and potentially a much more serious problem -- the text makes an oblique implied reference to the "Other", so it should technically appear as "an other" or as "an Other". I suspect that changing the text to read "another" raises complex philosophical issues and distortions... Next time I will take more care to at least link Other in such a context.

I look forward to your comments.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pedant, interesting points you've made. Like you, I'm not sure how non-English bibliographic entries are supposed to be treated, but generally I leave them alone. In this case, I think I noticed the "To appear in public" and "terrain" and assumed it was English. Oops!
The 'an other' is a curious one as well. I think I've seen it a few times before in articles on psychology and in articles about Lost episodes. I agree that the senses of 'an other' and 'an Other' are definitely different.
I've added both these miscorrections to my bot's exception list for this article, and I'll do a skim over wikipedia for occurrences of 'an other' now that it's fresh in my mind, and add any more genuine uses of the phrase to my exception list.
Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche and Nationality[edit]

I thought it best to respond semi-privately to your comment of December 29, 2007 on Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. Part of the difficulty I have stems from the fact that I do not take the position that Nietzsche was not a German seriously. It seems to me like the argument a Canadian friend once put to me that George Washington was not the first President of the United States (since the presiding officer of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation chanced to have been called the President): more a challenge to discover the absurdity within it than a challenging argument. I understand that my position renders an unprejudiced discussion of the merits difficult at best, but I surmise that you would agree that your own attachment to your position also stems from some conviction.

The improvement which you have been attempting for well over a year now has not met with consensus. I cannot think that your persistence in this endeavor is anything other than an attempt to circumvent this policy by means of attrition. This is a harsh judgment on my part, I know, but it is my hope that some blunt honesty might end this tedium where I must expect that the close of the month, like clockwork, will bring yet the same revision all over again. You position amounts to original research, as you argue the truth of your opinion rather than its verifiability. I hope that you continue to improve the articles related to Nietzsche in other regards. RJC Talk 09:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. The meat of my comment is concerned mostly with my feelings and your conduct, and so is not really of general interest. I didn't make any arguments that I had not already made back in July, August, and September 2007, but rather explained why I would not undertake a point-by-point analysis of your latest, lengthy post to the talk page.
You do raise a new point — that the implementation of the MOSBIO guideline does not uniformly support my interpretation — but in order to show why this is not so I would have to go through each of your examples in turn and argue why they are either a clear violation of that guideline, do not address the ambiguity present in the case of Nietzsche, or are too obscure to have a sufficient editor base for their current status to be indicative of consensus. In doing so, I would further lengthen a thread that already takes up about a fifth of the talk page. The last (and only) person to speak in favor of your position was Skomorokh — that was in July. I would appreciate it if you permitted this matter to drop. RJC Talk 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that your edits to Friedrich Nietzsche have become disruptive; cf. WP:DISRUPT, WP:CONSENSUS. If this continues I will request that this case be mediated, or quite possibly arbitrated. The fact that everyone has become tired of speaking with you about this on the talk page does not mean that you can edit the article however you wish. RJC Talk Contribs 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Pedant17)[edit]

Hello, Pedant17. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pedant17, where you may want to participate. -- RJC Talk Contribs 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of OldVersion.com[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldVersion.com (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A side note from the Nietzsche talk page[edit]

1. Hey Pedant---

I writing this comment here because it is really a side note that does apply to the debate on the Nietzsche page. You were right, of course, to note that "German" in the quote from the Shorter Routledge does refer to the language written and spoken by more than one national group. However, I think it is possible that the phrase "German prose style" does refer specifically to writing by Germans. We tend to talk about writing style nationally rather than by language. For the English Language we talk Irish Prose style, English (or British) prose style, and American prose style. I raise this only as a point of interest. I'm not arguing for this interpretation, and there is really no way to know what the authors at SREP meant. But, given that you seem to have an interest in language usage, I thought the point might interest you even if it does add to our conversation on the talk page.

Also (and I will copy this info to the Nietzsche talk page), I think it would be best if we find English Language sources for the section on Nietzsche's nationality. Translated sources are fine, however, I don't see a reason to use them when there are plenty of English Language sources that discuss Nietzsche's change in citizenship. Since these sources will be more accessible to the users who are most likely to use the English Wikipedia, it seems best to use them if possible. (Take a look at the article from the Standford Encyclopedia for starters.)

Also, given your interest in Nietzsche's nationality, you might be interested in this article from The Journal of Nietzsche Studies.

Best.Fixer1234 (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

God and Nietzsche[edit]

You gave no reason for reversion of my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commentarian (talkcontribs) 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't listen to that one, he's a bullshit artist. Thinks therefore He is not. --GuamIsGood (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk headings[edit]

Information.svg Re: Talk:Landmark Education, Please don't change normal level-2 headings to title headings. I reverted your edit. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect hyphenation[edit]

Thanks for copyediting Sugar, much of it is improved now. However, I notice that you have changed some two-word terms so that they are hyphenated, like taste bud and tooth decay to taste-bud and tooth-decay. This is not correct grammar or spelling. A trip to dictionary.com or m-w.com supports this. If this is an actual local spelling for your region, we should still probably use the North American spelling as per WP:ENGVAR, because that's the predominant spelling used in the article. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this to you because I notice you've made this kind of hyphenation changes more than once, so I thought you would want to be aware. -kotra (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction[edit]

Hello, Pedant17. Thank you for copyediting the Oil shale article. I am going also to nominate the Oil shale extraction article for the FAC, so maybe you are interested to take a look on this article? Thank you.Beagel (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure of article lead sentences[edit]

Hi,

I've left a note on talk:Dell regarding your idiosyncratic approach to article lead sections, as this is the fifth time you've edited the introduction to use the active voice in three months while leaving a summary no more informative than "copyediting". I see this has been brought to your attention several times before, and indeed that you have contributed to the talk page of WP:LEDE; insofar as the MoS does not demand that the old form be used, it certainly does not advocate E-Prime.

Rather than continuing to change this back on random passes of article which you visit (nVidia and Oracle Database have also gotten this treatment recently), please refrain from changing it on articles where the introduction is already stable. If you think this form should be the norm on Wikipedia, please obtain consensus to have the MoS changed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having continue to edit war over this after being told repeatedly by several different users not to, I'm going to discuss with other editors whether a user conduct RfC is appropriate at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A request for help![edit]

Hi again,

So I'm in need of your help to remove the "to be" form from a newly-started article, Jacobsen v. Katzer. The second paragraph is uncomfortably present tense. Could you perhaps suggest a rewording? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should be fixed now, though I did a rewrite of the article. Would appreciate any reviews I can get. mjlissner (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Palmer (Avatar)[edit]

You really cleaned the entry up. A LOT. Good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talkcontribs) 14:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Landmark Education[edit]

I addressed a comment to you, here. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tocsin[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Tocsin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Jock Boy 00:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your post "Removal of mention of Rosenberg's bigamous marriage" at Talk:Werner Erhard[edit]

These notations to talk pages are indeed helpful and a positive contribution, but in addition to that you could also be bold and add the info to the article itself, properly sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources of course. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry Palmer (Author)[edit]

Thanks for your diligence on this article, restoring edits that were possibly made in bias (the editor is a high ranking member of Palmer's organization). Please see a suggestion I'm posting on the talk page.

I also see that you've worked on a lot of other cult research related articles. If you would ever want to talk off-WP, drop me a line ... I think we'd have a lot to discuss.

Peace, Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Marketing[edit]

Dear Pedant17, I invite you to discuss the article that you created, History of Marketing. I started to edit on it, and I welcome your opinion and suggestion. Warm regards, Editor br (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel[edit]

Hi Pedant17. Buried in this wide-ranging edit was the insertion of some text that was then, and continues to be, contested. Discussion is currently going on here, and your input would be welcome. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brainwashing[edit]

Hi,

I've posted a comment on the extreme abuse surveys and other stuff from brainwashing on the talk page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Helpful editing tool[edit]

Instead of going through during your copyediting and placing each inline-citation on a separate line, you may wish to use User:Cacycle/wikEd help - which is quite helpful and allows you to see the cites as separate from the article body text. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Care to enable your email? Cirt (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to respond to this query please? Cirt (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]

Please do not insert an internal wikilink to another Wikipedia article as an attempt at referencing, as you did at List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. This is not appropriate. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Outrageous Betrayal[edit]

I started a RfC, at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Walls of text[edit]

Would you mind breaking your talk page posts up a little? It's quite hard to follow and distinguish your points, when you're posting them as a solid mass of fifty lines of text. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Barbados Group[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Barbados Group, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados Group. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacobsen v. Katzer Edits[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Jacobsen v. Katzer. Good work there. I tuned it up a bit to fix some of the implied suggestions. It should be all-clear now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlissner (talkcontribs) 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello, Pedant17. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Types of experience[edit]

HI I have a question about you article:Types of experience- and more exact= One may also differentiate between physical, mental, emotional and spiritual experience(s).


Who is your source for this catagorising?

Hope you reply fast, as I am very interested in this information!


Joy

Mail: sun_ra_dk@yahoo.dk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doysen (talkcontribs) 10:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction of serious misinformation in James Braid article[edit]

Hi, I have requested that the title for the article on James Braid be changed from the inappropriate, misleading, and historically incorrect current title of James Braid (physician) to the appropriate and historically correct title of James Braid (surgeon).

On the basis that you have contributed to the current article in some way, I thought that you should know that the article will be moving within 7 days from James Braid (physician) to the appropriate and correct title of James Braid (surgeon) unless there is widespread, informed, and fact-based objections.

It would be helpful if you could express your support for the correction of what seems to have been, originally, an inadvertent error, at site of the discussion of proposal. Thanks, in anticipation . . . Lindsay658 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at article Outrageous Betrayal[edit]

Pedant17, please stop making non-consensus edits to the article Outrageous Betrayal against the RFC on that article. If you feel the article wording needs improvement, you could take the article to peer review again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [3]. I did not ask you to start a new discussion at the article's talk page, I suggested a peer review if you feel strongly about this. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Pedant17! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 1,516 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Lawrence Norfolk - Find sources: "Lawrence Norfolk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

One of the articles that you have been involved in editing, Psychometry, has been proposed as a destination for a merge from Token-object reading. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Steve3849 11:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mind Control[edit]

Please dont make such broad edits plase discuss issues on talk page Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Outrageous Betrayal[edit]

Please see Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal#RfC:_Removal_of_words_Is_and_Was. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."
Before this edit when did Ncmvocalist discuss the grievance on User talk:Pedant17? --JWSchmidt (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Prior history of repeated attempts at discussion includes: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Pedant17_disruption.2C_after_two_RFCs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pedant17, Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#RfC:_Recent_wording_edits_to_article, Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#RfC:_Removal_of_words_Is_and_Was. Note: Also note that Pedant17 will repeatedly ignore requests for input/comment from those that post to his talk page (see above on this page). -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Cirt: can I interpret your reply as confirmation that Ncmvocalist did not even attempt to discuss his grievance with Pedant17 on this page before going to the noticeboard? --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not a simple matter of a grievance with one other party, rather an issue of disruption by one user after discusion and dispute resolution involving multiple other parties, across multiple admin threads and RfCs. Might be helpful for you to peruse the relevant history a bit more. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
In addition, Ncmvocalist was part a prior discussion at ANI, that was unfortunately not able to be resolved, due to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues with Pedant17. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
"peruse the relevant history a bit more" <-- More than what? At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pedant17, a page which you seem to suggest constitutes justification for Ncmvocalist not discussing his grievance with Pedant17 on this page before going to the noticeboard, Ncmvocalist wrote: "In such a situation (of a content dispute), opening this Rfc on the concerned editor was not a preferrable solution". Please explain your purpose in pointing to that page as "justification" for Ncmvocalist not discussing his grievance with Pedant17 on this page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
A misunderstanding, perhaps you are confused and did not look at the prior ANI threads, and the two other RFCs? -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of .ras[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article .ras has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article does not meet general notability requirements.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Community sanction enacted - you are on editing probation[edit]

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17, the community has imposed the following probationary community sanctions:

Pedant17 (talk · contribs) is subject to the following terms of probation:

1) Should Pedant17 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. The sanction will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction. Sanctions are at the discretion of the administrator, and may include page bans, topic bans, blocks, or any other restriction.
2) Pedant17 is strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations). This restriction may be enforced through blocks, and he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages, once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction.

Enacted as of this date and time. This has been logged to User:Pedant17/Community sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note for the record that the sanction explicitly restricting you to using one account did not pass. However, as I am sure you know, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry exists as standard policy here, and if you do violate that you should expect to be sanctioned for that violation. With that said, there is no community consensus for a stronger or more specific restriction than the normal terms of the policy. I hope you understand and will abide by that, and the community sanctions. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity[edit]

Come on over to Wikiversity some time. I'd like to discuss with you some options for creating a few Wikiversity learning resources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture redirect[edit]

Why did you redirect Pop Culture to Popular culture? There is a popular video on Youtube with 3M views called Pop Culture. Mnid talk 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and governments since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NetShell[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article NetShell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a sniff of anything vaguely resembling sourcing, let alone significance or the almighty WP:Notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at Stanisław August Poniatowski[edit]

I am planning to GA the article soon. You created the original version, perhaps you'd be interested in reading and commenting about the current one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mind Control[edit]

Hi. A new section has been added to the mind control article's talk page disputing the article's POV. I notice you made some contributions to the talk page before; I think your perspective could be useful again. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)