User talk:Qexigator

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

If you have a new message for Qexigator please leave it after section 8 below, in section 9, or in new section. Qexigator (18:04, 25 April 2012)

An announcement made online by "a small team... who work on the open source book tool for Wikipedia at PediaPress." "The Wikipedia Books Project - the complete English Wikipedia in 1000 books - will be presented at the Wikimania Conference 2014 in London"..."Over the last five years we have created thousands of books from Wikipedia content and became the official print on demand partner of the Wikimedia Foundation." "We all know that Wikipedia is huge. The English version alone consists of more than 4 million articles. ... the printed edition will be a work of record breaking dimensions." [2] --14:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • "...Wikipedia Is Nearing Completion..." Oct 25 2012[3]
  • "Is Wikipedia 'done'?" Oct. 29, 2012[4]

10:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books[5]

Contents

Aide mémoire[edit]

(not Aide-mémoire)

Conduct and Etiquette[edit]

[[6]] (15:16, 7 August 2012)

  • 'Welcome' from Jeraphine Gryphon [[7]], retained in History.
  • Please don't ...
    • 'leave comments on or otherwise alter user pages other than your own. Discussion should be on article talk pages or user talk pages.' hgilbert (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012
    • 'put messages on the top of a talk page. When you go to a talk page, there is a "+" button at the top of the page to add a new section. Use this. Good luck. hgilbert (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012

P P P[edit]

Pleasing policy policing, as advised by Bbb23 (multi-barnstar and userboxes, gentle humourist).

  • '...We can't tailor[[8]] our policies based on the possible reactions by readers [ sic ].... You can only remove tags if you give a valid reason for doing so, and saying it doesn't look good isn't a valid reason'.[[9]] "23:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"Pour encourager les autres" Candide, Satire (to enrage others?)
  • 'Here's the key language from the policy: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."... [removing] material from [an] article [is]... "undoing" another editor in the sense that the material ... removed had to have been added sometime in the past by another editor or editors. Therefore, it counts as a revert. There are times when the first edit [made] to an article will not be counted as a revert, but that's usually at the discretion of the admin reviewing the complaint. For example, if [you] had added material to the article, some admins wouldn't count that because [you] haven't "undone" anything. Or if [you] make an innocuous change to the article, like correcting a spelling error, that really has nothing to do with edit-warring, it probably wouldn't be counted. That said, you can't rely on the policy being interpreted in that way by all admins. And, particularly, in articles that have a special 1RR rule, you have almost no leeway for error. In any event... I suspect most admins, including this one, would call the first edit a revert for the purpose of the rule. In the future, the best thing is to err on the side of caution. If ... not sure, rather than revert, ask an admin in advance whether they think what you want to do is acceptable. Remember, most edits at Wikipedia are not urgent. You don't have to rush.'[[10]] 20:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
Examples of JUDGMENT: We have to make a judgment about the value of their services. - The judgment of the editors is final. - Don't rush to judgment without examining the evidence. - “Were his policies good or bad?” “I'll have to reserve judgment on that. It's too soon to know.” - Use your own best judgment. _First Known Use of JUDGMENT: 13th century.[11] --(16:28, 27 October 2012)

--Another revealing remark: "...retaining a separate article ... may be preferable, where points for and against and neutral can be succinctly stated without overt or implicit polemic." "Your points for and against comment makes it seem like you think of WP as some sort of "neutral" debating forum where each side is "fairly" allowed to get up on their own soapbox and make a direct plea to the general public in their own words, after which the general public makes up their own mind. If that's the case, you're sorely mistaken and at total odds with WP policies and guidelines". "...[that] is as far off the mark as the origin of Straw man is obscure."[[12]]. (08:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

..."Given that the main topic is simply "Alternative medicine" and not "The current controversy about 'alternative medicine' " the lead seems to be topheavy, and in point of editing parts of it would be better placed in later sections (leaving aside the sourcing and NPoV questions)..." "The article has been declared of interest to four WikiProjects, 1_Alternative medicine, 2_Medicine, 3_Rational Skepticism,(Portal:Philosophy of science) and 4_ Alternative views. .. this results from a continuing tension among those who engage themselves in formulating and applying "policy", which reflects a tension among the world wide readership generally, namely, between those who would hold that "science" (in all aspects) is within the scope of (or in some way a branch or extension of) epistemology, and those who hold the opposite or something else. The proposal here is neutral about any of that, and is merely concerned with the convenient distribution, arrangement and editorial presentation of the information." (12:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC))
--and see Medieval science &c [[13]]

In lieu of minitemplates[edit]

[[14]] [[15]] [[16]]

  • Qexigator advises (12:03, 14 April 2012): Bona fide discussion of edits is one thing, resorting to inciting groundless suspicion of sockpuppetry is another. (11:48, 16 April 2012)
  • Qexigator favours the protection of users and contributors (from novices to top Barnstars) from vandalism and other bad faith. (09:55, 16 April 2012)
  • (In furtherance of Wikipedia's objectives, and with reference to information and advice on the page 'Wikipedia:About' [[17]]) Qexigator proposes that it would be helpful if editors could be encouraged to be aware of the following, as one criterion but not necessarily overriding:
    • Every edit (new article or insert, deletion, internal link, category etc.) may affect the usefulness of the article if a user who is Creating a book is deciding about including it.
      • Briefly: 'Is this likely to help the article's "bookability"?'.--(07:02, 24 April 2012)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For work contributed as Lexigator. Salisian (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hat tips[edit]

[[18]]

  • for MuZemike [[19]] - lead to Dore' images.
  • for JamesBWatson [[20]] - Qexigator concurs with: 'Wikipedia gets an enormous amount of use. This is not only because there is a lot of stuff here, but also because on the whole most of it is of a fairly good quality. Wikipedia would not have the amount of success it has unless most of its material was of a reasonably high quality.'
  • for Hgilbert exemplifying aspects of house style (Style guide)
    • (article Goetheanum) revision 19:26, 25 April 2012 (→‎Architectural principles: condense) [[21]]
    • (article Philosophy of Freedom) revision 20:13, 17 April 2012 (→‎Rudolf Steiner: cleanup, tags) [1]. Qexigator(11:04, 26 April 2012)
    • (article Goetheanum) revision 00:36, 1 May 2012 (→‎Architectural principles: brevity; spekulativ translates as abstract thinking) (08:16, 1 May 2012)
-- also noting "all" for "much", Hgilbert's exemplary revision 20:30, 18 August 2012 at [[22]] re Why contradict the author? [[23]] emending a recently noticed error {stemming from Revision 09:26, 1 July 2006? [[24]]). -- (06:23, 19 August 2012)
  • for the Foundation, exemplifying, by the 'historic community editing and comment process' resulting in the New Terms of use [25], the spirit of the Town meeting (Open town meeting / Warrant (town meeting)) for the Global village (term). (11:39, 26 April 2012)
  • for User:EVula - adding Wikisource links, first noticed by Qexigator at John Richard Green Revision of 15:43, 9 August 2012. -- (16:53, 9 August 2012)
  • for Enric Naval - label dead link with [dead link] or go to www.archive.org, / put the URL on the form and click "Take me back", / click on several dates until you find one that works, / add "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" to the reference. [26] 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

From an essay[edit]

User:Rjgibb/Essay ... the main users of Wikipedia appear to be the Google generation - folk who want a quick answer to a question or a trail head for a subject they're interested in... (Sydney, Australia, January 2008). --(21:55, 10 August 2012)===From other Users=== User:Prototime: Freethought: Not so much a tool but more of a personal philosophy of logic. --(21:00, 4 September 2012) User:Qwyrxian, an Immediatist Patroller: ... the very idea of NPOV is somewhere between misleading and ludicrous. (--09:14, 5 October 2012)

Portals[edit]

"The Wikipedia category schemes (Wikipedia:Category schemes) are based on the classification system of Roget's Thesaurus." (09:48, 17 September 2012) ...Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus--(12:26, 18 September 2012)

Tip on refs in discussions[edit]

--for a list of refs in talk page discussions,[[27]] if you use ref tags Use this code to get all the refs on the page above the template, and leave all the ones under it for another reflist template. If you add this to each section that has refs in it, then they can be archived intact, with all their refs displayed right there. per WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC):

{{reflist|closed=yes}} --11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk about...[edit]

  • pov -- 14:18, 10 September 2012 [[28]]
  • Scientists and skeptics -- 10:26, 10 September 2012 [[29]]
  • Clarification (Whole medical systems) -- 13:45, 13 September 2012 [[30]]
  • nomination of "Whole medical systems" for deletion -- 10:05, 12 September 2012 [[31]]
  • "a place for both" -- 09:17, 12 September 2012 [[32]]
  • Bias / ott ? (Bishop Stubbs) -- 15:13, 11 September 2012 [[33]]. -- (added 10:55, 13 September 2012)
  • Epistemology (The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception [34] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]]) -- 20:38, 3 September 2012 [[38]] -- (added 14:38, 13 September 2012)
  • QuackWatch and NPOV -- 23:15, 14 September 2012[[39]] -- (added 07:50, 15 September 2012)
  • patient care and AHA -- 17:01, 27 November 2012 [[40]] -- (added 15:58, 28 November 2012)
  • Soon enough -- 08:01/09:19, 28 November 2012 [[41]] -- (added 13:42, 28 November 2012)
  • Caveat lector (caution for smug intelligence):[[42]] (added 09:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC))

About Edits[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (18:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC))

Citation[edit]

"Wikipedia does not dictate a particular way to insert citations into an article."[43]] - Wikipedia:Citation templates - Help:Citation tools - Template:Cite Hansard. 08:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A redirection[edit]

  • Architects Act 1997: amendment of June 2008 under the European Communities Act 1972 [[44]]

- this title was changed by an intervention redirecting to Architects (Recognition of European Qualifications etc and Saving and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2008.

The unintended consequence of the intervention [[45]] was to obscure the sequence of the legislation and its significance--see:

  • " The Architects Act 1997 ...consolidated two Acts of the 1930's as later amended both by primary legislation and by Orders in Council implementing the EC directive on architects providing for the recognition of architects qualified in other EC states" (revision 09:15, 1 October 2012)...
  • " Amendment in 2008 under the European Communities Act 1972 (UK): Amendments made in June 2008 by Statutory Instrument established rules for the recognition of professional qualifications enabling migrants from the European Economic Area or Switzerland to register as architects in the United Kingdom. It also set out provisions for facilitating temporary and occasional professional services cross-border."(revision 18:36, 29 September 2012). 12:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia books[edit]

It is not appropriate to mention in articles that works are included in "Wikipedia books", which are first of all not published works, and second of all simply duplicate existing editions. hgilbert (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Where can I (Qexigator) reply to "It is not appropriate to mention in articles that works are included in "Wikipedia books", which are first of all not published works, and second of all simply duplicate existing editions. User:Qexigator
    • You can reply here on your own talk page. hgilbert (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

2 non-Wikipedia books[edit]

If you want to alert users to the mere existence of a relevant (non-Wikipedia) book, rather than mentioning that it exists in the text of an article, it would be best to either:

  • make reference to some important information the book brought to light, and cite the book as a reference, OR
  • add the book to the concluding Bibliography (or comparable section) of the article.

Hoping this is helpful -- hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

About citing articles[edit]

  • See link under Toolbox in left margin, e.g., Cite [[46]]
This page opens with IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information...Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.
  • and of Citation styles there listed, see
Bluebook: Harvard JOLT style [[47]]
Bluebook: Harvard JOLT style [[48]]
  • The Cite page panel Bibliographic details includes a link for Primary contributors: Revision history statistics. (16:56, 18 July 2012)

For future reference[edit]

Diplomatic history, British foreign policy &c.[edit]

Article Glyn Stone (Professor of International History at the University of the West of England), created 04:23, 29 December 2008 by Jezhotwells, includes in list of publications

Glyn Stone and T.G. Otte (eds.), Anglo-French Relations since the Late Eighteenth Century, London: Routledge, 2008.

Other Wikipedia citations/ listings for T.G.Otte

‘Eyre Crowe and British Foreign Policy: A Cognitive Map’, in T. G. Otte and Constantine A. Pagedas (eds.), Personalities, War and Diplomacy. Essays in International History (Cass, 1997), pp. 14-37.
Satow by T.G.Otte in Diplomatic Theory from Machievelli to Kissinger (Palgrave, Basngstoke and New York, 2001)
"Not Proficient in Table-Thumping": Sir Ernest Satow at Peking, 1900-1906 by T.G.Otte in Diplomacy & Statecraft vol.13 no.2 (June 2002) pp.161-200
"A Manual of Diplomacy": The Genesis of Satow's Guide to Diplomatic Practice by T.G.Otte in Diplomacy & Statecraft vol.13 no.2 (June 2002) pp.229-243
C. A. Harris, "Medhurst, Sir Walter Henry (1822–1885)," rev. T. G. Otte, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
Otte, T. G. "Rumbold, Sir Horace George Montagu, 9th Baronet (1869–1941)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press (2004)
T. G. Otte in "He interviews the Ambassadors": Alfred de Rothschild, High Finance and High Politics in Victorian Britain, a chapter of On the Fringes of Diplomacy: influences on British foreign policy, 1800-1945, ed.s John Fisher and Antony Best (Ashgate Publishing, England and USA, 2011)
Otte, T.G., The Foreign Office Mind: The Making of British Foreign Policy, 1865-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2011)
Jeremy Black, John Charmley, Richard Grayson and others [incl. T. G. Otte], The Makers of British Foreign Policy, From Pitt to Thatcher (Palgrave, Basingstoke and New York, 2002)
Otte, T.G., The China Question: Great Power Rivalry and British Isolation, 1894-1905 (Oxford University Press, 2007), with reference to influence of Joseph Chamberlain on policy of Salisbury's administration.

Also in:

  • article 'Switzerland' in dKosopedia [50]
Neville Wylie. Swiss Trans-Alpine Railway Lines in T.G. Otte and Keith Neilson, ed.s, Railways and International Politics: Paths of Empire, 1848-1945. 2006. London: Routledge. Pp. 217-238.
  • Edward Thornton in [51]
T. G. Otte, The Foreign Office Mind: The Making of British Foreign Policy, 1865-1914, Cambridge University Press, 2011

See also:

Professor of Diplomatic History: Publications [52]
Routledge: [53]
Diplomacy and Power: Studies in Modern Diplomatic Practice [54]

--(23:21, 8 August 2012) Relevant images in public domain on line but subject to copyright of author / publisher / other:

  • The Foreign Office Mind: The Making of British Foreign Policy, 1865-1914 T. G. Otte (Author), CUP. "Jacket illustration: The Foreign Office, London, by unknown artist. Author's collection." [55]
  • The China Question: Great Power Rivalry and British Isolation, 1894-1905 T. G. Otte (Author), OUP. Jacket illustration, source unstated but appears to be from a comtemporary cartoon, perhaps published in Punch (magazine).[56]
  • Diplomacy and Power: Studies in Modern Diplomatic Practice T. G. Otte and others. Jacket illustration, source unstated.[57]

--(11:55, 9 August 2012)

The accession of the USA and after[edit]

The emergence of the north American federal republic, as the United States of America, among the "Great Powers" of the long 19c.

Historiography of American Political History by Richard J. Jensen [58]
Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1886-96 by Richard J. Jensen (25 Oct 1971) User:Rjensen
American Political Development, A Bibliography for Teaching and Research [59]

-- (22:31, 11 August 2012)

--(07:50, 12 August 2012)

Portland, Weymouth &c.[edit]

Portland: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Portland-Isle-Geological-Introduction.htm]
Weymouth: [62] - [63]
Sailing: [64]

--(12:57, 11 August 2012)

Historiography as theorem[edit]

It is proposed that a review of historiography would be incomplete without giving attention to Goetheanistic historiography, such as that mentioned in a work cited in the article on Rudolf Steiner, namely, The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception (republished 2008 in a translation with the title Goethe's Theory of Knowledge, An Outline of the Epistemology of His Worldview, Section F The Spiritual, or Cultural Sciences (or, in the translation of 2008, The Humanities). Steiner there quoted Goethe: It is not the intelligent person who controls, but intelligence; not the rational person but reason; and again, The rational world is to be conceived as a great Immortal Individuality which unceasingly brings to pass what is necessary and thus makes itself master over the fortuitous. Steiner closed his section F by remarking that, as psychology investigates the nature of the individual, so the "science of peoples" must investigate that "immortal individuality". Steiner concluded the book with another quotation from Goethe: I think science might be called the knowledge of the general, abstract knowledge; art, on the other hand, would be science applied in action; science would be reason and art its mechanism, so that it might also be called practical science. Finally, therefore science would be the theorem and art the problem.. This sort of thing is more rigorous and demanding than may appear at first sight. Admittedly, it seems currently to be unwelcome in mainstream academic circles, but so is the so-called Whig interpretation. (14:08, 15 August 2012)

  • For discussion of Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy of Freedom see Qexigator's revision at 09:39, 15 August 2012, in the paragraph quoted belowfrom the article on Rudolf Steiner [[65]] and Talk section 1923 preface of Theory of Knowledge... and subsection Why contradict the author? [[66]])
"In 1888, as a result of his work for the Kürschner edition of Goethe's works, Steiner was invited to work as an editor at the Goethe archives in Weimar. Steiner remained with the archive until 1896. As well as the introductions for and commentaries to four volumes of Goethe's scientific writings, Steiner wrote two books about Goethe's philosophy: The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception (1886, republished 2008 in a translation with the title Goethe's Theory of Knowledge, An Outline of the Epistemology of His Worldview [67] and Goethe's Conception of the World (1897). During this time he also collaborated in complete editions of the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and the writer Jean Paul and wrote numerous articles for various journals. During his time at the archives, Steiner wrote what he considered to be his most important philosophical work, Die Philosophie der Freiheit (The Philosophy of Freedom or The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity—Steiner's preferred English title) (1894), an exploration of epistemology and ethics that suggested a path upon which humans can become spiritually free beings. Nevertheless, he later affirmed, in his Preface to the 1923 edition of The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception, that this work (The Theory...) was speaking of an essential nature of knowledge opening the way from the sense world to a world of spirit, such that, as a theory of knowledge, it had been the foundation and justification for all that he had since asserted orally or in print." (18:59, 22 August 2012)
See also Talk:Philosophy of Freedom section "Historical context".(19:56, 23 August 2012)
  • Discussing "heritage" in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, Goethe's second novel published in 1795-96) R.D.Miller, concluded that it was in this idea that Goethe had expressed his mature classical ideal of humanity according to which the individual contains within himself and embodies the general, such that a dedication to the life of others would not necessarily, from that point of view, imply renunciation of his own being. (R. D. Miller, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre: an interpretation, The Duchy Press, Harrogate, 1969.[[68]]) (07:32, 18 September 2012)

Scope?[edit]

Topics within the scope of a Goetheanistic historiography would include a wide-ranging consideration of the Basic norm (Grundnorm) of Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law (Reine Rechtslehre) and Immanuel Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science - to compare, contrast, resolve - as well as such works such as Hobbes's Leviathan (book); and the art of lawmaking as practiced from the earliest times to the present day. (--08:32, 17 August 2012) The scope would extend to such topics as are connected with Giambattista Vico, and with Goethe and the Greeks, Humphry Trevelyan (CUP 1941, republished 1981 with a Foreword by Hugh Lloyd-Jones). (--20:03, 21 August 2012); and could include 1_a survey of topics such as Philosophical skepticism - Foundationalism - Pseudoskepticism - Self-refuting idea (--06:58, 5 September 2012), and 2_other works such as The Abolition of Man (1943)[69] [70][[71]] --(22:10, 18 September 2012)

-with reference to the study From Nature to Sub-Nature March, 1925: "183. In the age of Natural Science, since about the middle of the nineteenth century, the civilised activities of mankind are gradually sliding downward, not only into the lowest regions of Nature, but even beneath Nature. Technical Science and Industry become Sub-Nature. 184. This makes it urgent for man to find in conscious experience a knowledge of the Spirit, wherein he will rise as high above Nature as in his sub-natural technical activities he sinks beneath her. He will thus create within him the inner strength not to go under. 185. A past conception of Nature still bore within it the Spirit with which the source of all human evolution is connected. By degrees, this Spirit vanished altogether from man's theory of Nature. The purely Ahrimanic spirit has entered in its place, and passed from theory of Nature into the technical civilisation of mankind." [[72]]
* see Natural science, and see Outline of science - Outline of astronomy - Astrophysics - Biophysics - Technology - Applied science - (&c. List of academic disciplines)
* for Ahriman, see [[73]] - Angra Mainyu and Thomas Love Peacock: Letters to Edward Hookham and Percy B. Shelley[[74]] ed. Richard Garnett (Paperback reprint, 2 July 2004, from Bibliophile edn 1910, University Press, Cambridge, Mass).
* and see Goethe's World View (Goethe's Conception of the World): Epilogue to the New Edition of 1918.16:13, (23 October 2012)
-for historical periods in connection with equinoctial precession within solar system (ecliptic[[75]]) see Tables X and XI of Guenther Wachsmuth's The evolution of mankind, translation to English from the German by Norman Macbeth [[76]], 1961, 208 pages. Library of Congress BP595 .W343. Translation of Werdegang der Menschheit, Vol. 3 in a series by the author, of which v. 1 is Earth and man, and v. 2, The development of the earth.(source [77]) -- (added 09:48, 17 September 2012)
-see also: types and uses of Chronology and Calendars - Common Era (Anno Domini), and see: Ormond Edwards When Was Anno Domini?: Dating the Millennium, 1999 (based on historical, calendrical, astronomical data) [78] --(added 07:32, 19 September 2012)
-for the role of myth in 19c see Jan Bažant "Czech myths in the National Museum (Prague)" [79] "...Jan Vansina...has demonstrated that non-written recollections can be divided into two groups - experiences belonging to personal biographies or events pertaining to absolute past. ....The third painting [in the lunettes of the Pantheon of the newly built National Museum of Prague, fig. 13, 1898], “Comenius presents his pedagogical works to the town council of Amsterdam”, has a universal message, because it honours the founder of the pedagogic science...and... implicitly comments on the Czech “dark age”, because after the battle at the White mountain, the prominent protestant (Jan) John Amos Comenius had to leave his homeland forever. He thus symbolises heavy losses the Czech culture suffered after the final victory of the Habsburgs.... While in the mythical past, the Czech lands were peopled exclusively by Czechs who were deciding themselves who will rule them, as the story of Přemysl, the Ploughman demonstrated, in the 19th century Czechs had to share this country with Germans and politically they were dependant on Vienna. That is perhaps why in Prague myth played so important a role in the museum, where we would rightly expect nothing but strictly historical facts and scientifically approved statements." (19:18, 8 October 2012)
-for a continuing theme see orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano[[80]], and Thales, "Νοῦς ὑγιὴς ἐν σώματι ὑγιεῖ". (09:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC))
-for "The scientific unconscious: Goethe's post-Kantian epistemology", "Carl Gustav Carus and the science of the unconscious" and "Eduard von Hartmann's The Philosophy of the Unconscious see "Thinking the Unconscious, Nineteenth-Century German Thought", ed. Nicholls and Liebscher, CUP, 2010.[81]. Qexigator (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
-for The Enemy within: Religion, Science and Modernism by Ernestine van der Wall, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences2007 see[82] 00:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
-what in the persistent ott[83],[84] badmouthing of homeopathy, often in the name of immodest and counter-rational claims for science or scientific method,[85] is a reminder of paop "Joint Session"[86]? ...or then again, of pos[87],[88]? 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Memorable edit: "m (lol)"[edit]

  • comic, concise, correct

at Chakra revision 09:44, 18 April 2012 Jeraphine Gryphon deleting "Bold text". (10:31, 20 April 2012)

Exempla[edit]

1_For a literary specimen combining that sort of 3 cs with another (common Usage - Common sense - common knowledge) see the revision referring to p.76 of Noblesse Oblige (book) (1956)[[89]], where in his "Open Letter" to "the Honble Mrs. Peter Rodd (Nancy Mitford) on a Very Serious Subject" Evelyn Waugh had written:

It is natural to the literary mind to be unduly observant of the choice of words. Logan Pearsall Smith was the classical case. I met him once only. He did not speak to me until we stood on the doorstep leaving. He then said: 'Tell me, how would you describe the garment you are wearing? A greatcoat? An overcoat? A topcoat?' I replied: 'Overcoat.' 'Ah, would you? Yes. Most interesting. And, tell me, would that also be the usage of an armigerous admiral?' That way lay madness and I fear if you are taken too seriously you and Professor Ross ( Alan S. C. Ross ) may well drive your readers into the bin".

Waugh's life and works suggest that this spoke more of the mordant confession of one stylish and best-selling novelist to another than of mere jesting wit. (09:44, 1 November 2012)

2_A recent example of another set of 3c's, namely, Courtesy - character - country (each country having after her own fashion the character and manners which makyth man[[90]]--

Courtesy titles for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom [[91]], [[92]] --(09:36, 7 November 2012)

3_Three more timely mnenomic[[93]] [[94]] sets and three variants:

_Cast - Cost - Cusp[[95]] * College (disambiguation) - Courage - Credence * Cronos - Crux (disambiguation) - Crisis ...
_Highways - Byways[[96]] - sideways[[97]] * any[[98]], [[99]] - enough[[100]] - entire[[101]]. --(09:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC))
_purpose[[102]] - practice[[103]] - practise[104], [105]. (10:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Clean up (book titles 'Putting Two & Two Together')[edit]

Among Lexigator's numerous books of Nov-Dec 2010, one had in its title '(vol.5)'. The full title was Civilizing Europe: Triumphal and other monuments ~Putting Two & Two Together (vol.5). This was dated 11 Nov 2010 23.08. Some others also had 'Putting Two & Two Together' in the title or subtitle. One of those (dated 20 Nov 2010 8.20) had the title and subtitle The Goetheanum, Dornach ~Putting Two & Two Together (vol.2); and another (dated 20 Nov 2010 8.20) had the title and subtitle London & Dornach ~Putting Two & Two Together (vol. 3). Qexigator noticed that two Endnotes were included in the vol.2 and 3 titles which may now be more suited for insertion in a Preface using the tab for that which has later become available at the PediaPress page.

Qexigator had not traced any other of Lexigator's titles with Putting Two & Two Together as part of the title, but observed that one of the Endnotes quotes Rudolf Steiner: "When he spoke of Novalis, Schroer was often fond of saying--He is a spirit whom one cannot understand with this modern intellectualism which knows only that twice two is four." On the assumption that Lexigator was using 'vol.5' as an interim title for work in progress, the question may have been: should it have been renumbered as vol.1 or 4? Qexigator has opted for vol.1, and has also removed the obsolete attributions, and the Endnotes, which anyone who so chooses could reinsert in a Preface.

The two endnotes were: _____(1) "When he spoke of Novalis, Schroer [[106]] was often fond of saying--He is a spirit whom one cannot understand with this modern intellectualism which knows only that twice two is four." Rudolf Steiner, lecture [[107]] given at Dornach, 23 September 1924. (Karl Julius Schröer, b. January 11th 1825 Bratislava, then Empire of Austria , d. December 16th 1900). (23:50, 21 April 2012) (08:03, 23 April 2012) ____(2) According to one author (not an architect, Dr Garry Stevens in "The Favored Circle", 1998, MIT [ISBN 10: 0262194082] / [ISBN 0-262-19408-2]) the public standing and repute of [Rudolf Steiner] among architects is made evident by the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects. Dr Stevens, after remarking that not every major architect belongs to a master-pupil chain, continues: "Membership is not an absolute condition of membership. Of the first-order architects in the MEA, those occupying several pages, only Steiner, Marchioni, Holl, Guarini, Fuga, Fathy, and Fanzago have no connections of any kind with other architects. This is seven out of 114, or six per cent." Dr Stevens then adds a curious remark: "Rudolf Steiner's inclusion, let alone the length of his treatment, is a minor mystery. .." (17:51, 21 April 2012) (08:03, 23 April 2012) Qexigator realigned the four as a set of volumes (01, 1, 2 and 3) with 'Putting Two & Two Together' in the title (as explained in the Talk pages). [[108]] ---(22:53, 1 May 2012). But in an earlier version of Nov 2010 [[109]] Lexigator had combined the more relevant articles of these volumes into one with the title Putting Two & Two Together (1-3) ~The Royal Exchange & The Goetheanum (about 498 pages £18.80 / US$29.51 /23.92€). Qexigator commends this version above the others, expecting that anyone interested would prefer it, either as it is or as a basis for creating a similar book, with the further advantage that when ordering any book from Pediapress, the user is now able to add a preface of his/her own (which was not then possible). (23:49, 14 August 2012).(Qexigator has now added two subsidiary articles, bringing the book to about 506 pages, not including any preface added when ordered, bringing the price being quoted on the Pediapress page to £9.03 / US$29.76 / 24.24€).) Of the images for the book's front cover offered on the Pediapress page when a copy is being ordered, Qexigator would select the aerial view of the Royal Exchange [[110]] (viewed from the nearby Tower 42) showing its trapezoid plan on its site between Threadneedle Street and Cornhill, as it faces across Bank junction and toward St Paul's Cathedral. -- (07:24, 18 August 2012) -It may be that attention should also be given in due course to the title

  • 'Weimar : "Poetry & Truth" : Goethe & some others ~Placemaking (Dec 2010)' [111]

--(00:12, 22 April 2012/ 07:31, 15 August 2012)


Edits 10th - 21st April, 2012 [[112]][edit]

First edits: Matthew Digby Wyatt[edit]
  • 16:07, 11 April (RIBA Hon.Sec.& Gold Medal)
  • 16:15, 11 April (Newells)
  • 16:21, 11 April 2012 (see also refs)
  • 22:38, 11 April 2012 (ref. to link for images of Newells)
    • 18:29, 10 April (paragraph about architect for Newells)
    • 22:32, 11 April (link to images of Newells)
    • 09:50, 20 April (links)
Last edit 21st April (pre-block)[edit]
  • 19:50, 21 April (User book) Placemaking: The Royal Exchange & The Goetheanum (PoF deleted from section 3 (after putting in s.8))

(10:35, 23 April 2012)

Other edits connected with architects[edit]

James Gibbs (article) revision 22:53, 11 April 2012 (present owner of Gothic Temple[[113]]

  • Stowe House (article) revision 22:53, 11 April 2012 (present owner of Gothic Temple)[[114]]

George Gilbert Scott

  • Handcross Park School (article) revision 16:30, 16 April 2012 (architects of school buildings)[[115]]

Rudolf Steiner

  • The Goetheanum, Dornach (User book) revision 19:26, 21 April 2012 (obsolete attribution removed (and endnotes))[[116]] --(18:34, 24 April 2012)
    • See also
      • Goetheanum (article) revision 14:53, 25 April 2012 (Steiner's public standing and repute: Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects) [[117]]
      • Rudolf Steiner (article) revision 20:12, 18 April 2012 (ref. to Pfeiffer on Mystery Dramas) [[118]] (22:45, 25 April 2012)

About Edits - cross-refs &c[edit]

Bookability[edit]

Qexigator advises that, when the convenient distribution of information over sets of articles with a topic in common is being considered, the prospective use of the articles for PDF download or for making a book needs to be taken into account, as mentioned at Talk:Royal Institute of British Architects. -- (21:43, 14 July 2012)

-and see Wikipedia:Books and Help:Books/for experts (09:10, 18 July 2012)

Aim[edit]

...the aim is to select an appropriate article and then be reasonably succinct for the information of the reader and in proportion to the context and content, while not mis-paraphrasing the author referred to (perhaps due to inadvertent taint of POV), and making use of links to avoid duplication. If the reader is given the reference s/he can decide whether or not to follow it up (then or later) ....[and] something more may be required ... to satisfy Qexigator's 'bookability' test... From [[119]] Section 'Rudolf Steiner'

  • in respect of edits about Rudolf Steiner: ... to ensure that the reader is made aware of what distinguishes Steiner's 'path', perhaps what is needed are some further authentic citable references from or about Steiner's literary legacy, including his "Leading Thoughts: Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge", as in 'Esoteric path: Paths of spiritual development', or some mention of his lectures "Karmic Relationships: Esoteric Studies"... Qexigator (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • About Hgilbert's Revision of 20:13, 17 April 2012 -- Florin Lowndes particularly stresses that his proposition is in respect of Steiner's final version of POF, therefore mention of this should be reinstated in due course?

Categories & Book Template[edit]

Pages that link to "Template:Wikipedia books": There are 100-250 pages listed as linking to "Template:Wikipedia books".

As here: Category:Architects Registration in the United_Kingdom, the Book status is shown on the category page, and links to this: Book:Architects Registration in the United Kingdom. A question was, 'whether other categories have such a link, and how can these be found?' Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC). The Reply: '...If you're asking which category have those templates, you can always check the "what links here" of Wikipedia books and filter by namespace (e.g. Pages that link to "Template:Wikipedia books"). Books are not as linked as they should be, many of them lack the category links (or more importantly mainspace links via navigational templates such as Rihanna or Intelligent Design. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC). (07:23, 30 April 2012)

Exemplyfing ref. to Wikisource[edit]

see: (article) Isaac Newton, revision 21:47, 17 April 2012 Qexigator [[120]]

Noted[edit]

  • Noting 2 revisions about Raymond Unwin PRIBA, by 89.240.16.15 ---
1_at 18:28, 14 July 2012 (→‎History: adding architects)

The roots of the UK town and country planning systems... through the work of thinkers such as Ebenezer Howard and the philanthropic actions of industrialists such as the Lever Brothers and the Cadbury family, and architects such as Raymond Unwin, PRIBA, and Patrick Abercrombie.

and 2_at 18:18, 14 July 2012 (→‎Early years: m link)

Raymond Unwin was born in Rotherham, Yorkshire and grew up in Oxford, after his father sold up his business and moved there to study. He was educated at Magdalen College School, Oxford. --(20:07, 14 July 2012)

Wikis and online reference[edit]

Some Wikipedia articles have a list for links to online source books, such as Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (William Blackstone)

Other links for research and online reference can be found at:

Five Doré Images[edit]

Charon [[134]]: Gustave Doré's illustration to Dante's Inferno. Plate IX: Canto III: Arrival of Charon.

  • "And lo! towards us coming in a boat / An old man, hoary with the hair of eld, / Crying: 'Woe unto you, ye souls depraved!'" (Longfellow's translation)
  • "And, lo! toward us in a bark / Comes an old man, hoary white with eld, / Crying "Woe to you, wicked spirits!" (Cary's translation)__'Dante's Inferno translated by The Rev. Henry Francis Cary, MA from the original of Dante Alighieri and illustrated with the designs of M. Gustave Doré. New Edition With Critical and Explanatory notes, Life of Dante, and Chronology. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. New York, London and Paris',printed c. 1890 in America. [[135]]

Dante [[136]]: The caption reads 'In the midway of this our mortal life, I found me in a gloomy wood, astray' Canto 1 lines 1,2.' [[137]]

Don Quixote [[138]]: Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination" '. The History of Don Quixote, by Cervantes. The Text edited by J. W. Clark, M.A. (Sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge) and a Biographical Notice of Cervantes by T. Teignmouth Shore, M.A. Illustrated by Gustave Doré. In Two Parts. Part I. Cassell & Company, Limited, London, Paris, New York & Melbourne. Originally published 1863; This edition 1906. [[139]]

Jonah [[140]]: "Jonah Cast Forth By the Whale" [[141]] [[142]]

Landscape [[143]]: Landscape in Scotland. Source Walters Art Museum [[144]]. Date ca. 1878[[145]] --(12:43, 23 April 2012/ 22:28, 23 April 2012)

and Doré's Wandering Jew[[146]] --(16:52, 2 October 2012)

Restoration[edit]

Upon receiving the message: 'This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.'

From The Vanity of Human Wishes [[147]], Samuel Johnson (this extract from Renascence Editions, online)

' Where then shall Hope and Fear their Objects find?/ Must dull Suspence corrupt the flagrant Mind?/ Must helpless Man, in Ignorance sedate,/ Swim darkling down the Current of his Fate?

Must no Dislike alarm, no Wishes rise,/ No Cries attempt the Mercies of the Skies?/ Enquirer, cease, Petitions yet remain,/ Which Heav'n may hear, nor deem Religion vain.

Still raise for Good the supplicating Voice,/ But leave to Heav'n the Measure and the Choice./ Safe in his Pow'r, whose Eyes discern afar/ The secret Ambush of a specious Pray'r./ Implore his Aid, in his Decisions rest,

Secure whate'er he gives, he gives the best. ' (23:18, 24 April 2012)

Qexigator's reasons[edit]

see previous edits

New messages for Qexigator[edit]

If you have a message for Qexigator please leave it in this section.

Here.........

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for formatting references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

.

Your submission at Articles for creation Hiebel[edit]

[[148]] --Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
  1. ^ [1]]
Unfortunately I don't know what happened to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Hiebel. Maybe it was deleted for some reason, if it had not been worked on since May. Looking at the draft in User:Qexigator/sandbox, it looks like it needs to be sourced. The German Wikipedia has a lower standard of notability than the English version and we would need to see some evidence of reliable, independent (and in-depth) coverage about Hiebel. Sionk (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss this, I suggest you do it here. Your draft doesn't explain why Heibel is particularly notable. Also you only have provided two sources, neither of which are sufficient. Of the two references in your draft, one is to another Wikipedia article (which isn't a reliable source, as it can be edited by anyone) and the other is to a book by Heibel (which proves the book exists, but isn't independent coverage about him). Wikipedia's general notability guideline explains what evidence would be needed to prove Heibel is widely known and suitable for an article here. Sionk (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sionk's remarks above seem to mean that what counts as notable for readers of German Wikipedia does not for English/American Wikipedia. Given the content of the article taken from the German, why that should exclude Hiebel is not self-evident to Qexigator. --Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

...works listed for Friedrich Hiebel at German National Library, Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek[149] --08:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Now done. [150],[151] --20:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation Westphal[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Follow up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jonathan_Westphal_(2)&oldid=504022882
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=504962144#For_advice_re_Article_for_creation._Title_Jonathan_Westphal.2C_philosopher

July 28 For advice re Article for creation. Title Jonathan Westphal, philosopher. Is there a way out of this Catch-22? Proposed article declined with comment 'To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.' . But this contributor (Qexigator) cannot find the 'other' one, and so cannot edit it. How is that saving time? --see T_ and Q_ below.

T_Txcrossbow's comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jonathan_Westphal_(2) Submission declined on 27 July 2012 by Txcrossbow (talk). This was the comment: This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Westphal, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Q_Qexigator's reply Article for creation. Title Jonathan Westphal, philosopher Thank you, Txcrossbow/Stella/Batphone, for taking a little time to give this proposed article your attention. Your answer implies that you have not considered it on its merits, but have decided it is a duplicate, and the title has been changed from Article for creation. Title Jonathan Westphal, philosopher to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Westphal (2). Please consider the following and advise.

1_As a result of seeing the discussion between Thewikibeagles and Hgilbert at Talk:Philosophy of Freedom, Qexigator had inferred that in matters of philosophy Thewikibeagles has a skill and knowledge beyond the ordinary; and, seeing that Thewikibeagles had proposed Jonathan Westphal as the subject of a new article, but that it had been disallowed for want of notability, Qexigator made a google search which promptly yielded websites with information sufficient to establish 'notability' by any reasonable standard. Qexigator has not seen the article proposed by Thewikibeagles but has drafted one using the information mentioned User:Qexigator/Jonathan Westphal and proposes that it be used as the start of a new article or for revising the User talk:Thewikibeagles's. Qexigator (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikibeagles&oldid=503642847"

2_It is not self-evident that there is sufficient reason to exclude Jonathan Westphal from (the Wikipedia) List of philosophers (R–Z) that includes the following:

R. R. Rockingham Gill Richard Schacht Hubert Schleichert J. B. Schneewind Joseph D. Sneed Ernest Sosa Elliott Sober Peter Tudvad Michael Tye (philosopher) Peter Unger Bas van Fraassen Peter van Inwagen Crispin Wright Qexigator (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qexigator/Jonathan_Westphal&oldid=503907258 --(09:46, 27 July 2012)

---Qexigator 06:25, 28 July 2012::: I'm not sure which other draft this one is supposed to be a duplicate of; I couldn't find the other draft, though an article on Jonathan Westphal was speedily deleted about a week ago for a lack of notability. On its merits this submission would still have been declined because all its references are primary sources such as his university's biography page or his own works. To establish Westphal's notability we need sources by independent people writing about Westphal, such as reviews of his works in academic journals or maybe newspaper coverage. I don't doubt there are many other insufficiently sourced philosopher articles, but that's irrelevant; each article must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon, for this explanatory information.Qexigator (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________

FitzJames of Scotland?[edit]

Perhaps House of FitzJames does not mention Scotland because none of the many titles of that house are in the peerage of Scotland. Did any member of the house ever set foot in Scotland? —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

numbers of tildes[edit]

For future reference:

On your own User page it might be more convenient to "sign" with five tildes rather than four. Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Architectural education in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi, I checked my edit and I'm not able to find any problem with it. Actually you removed the link to the source.

  1. The text was: <ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Paul_George_Konody]</ref> and therefore the footnote looked like this "[152]", pretty obscure
  2. FrescoBot converted the link to the standard interwiki syntax: <ref>[[s:Author:Paul George Konody]]</ref> and the footnote became "s:Author:Paul George Konody" (please note that here you are able to see with the s: that the link points Wikisource)
  3. Then you removed the footnote and replaced it with: "(so described at the page of wikisource for Paul_George_Konody)".

I'm going to revert your edit in order to restore the link to Wikisource. Moreover there are wrong underscores and Wikisource is not capitalized. If you feel I'm missing something in your remark, please feel free to write me again. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I just removed underscores in Paul_George_Konody and moved the footnote within the brackets. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Architects Act 1997, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Explained unexplained removal[edit]

Hi! I actually explained the removal, but in the next edit summary.[153] I accidentally hit enter before finishing the original edit summary. The text you added seems like an advertisement. Perhaps it can be worded a bit differently. For example, is all the detail neccessary? Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've posted at the talk page. I'll take this there. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article[edit]

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article, resulting in air tight MEDRS sources for the lede first two sentences, and RS for the first paragraph. Now lets see if we can keep the content and sources from being slowly removed as appears to have happened in the past. Thanks again. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words on my talkpage. Of course I won't delete them ! I was conscious of Primum non nocere and was worried that my edit had kicked off the terminal decline. Your comments have eased the guilt. I also enjoyed your quip about the homeopathic dilution of a toxic joke and the treacle refs. At least we got a few dodgy puns out of the whole thing Aspheric (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Group library for collaborative editing[edit]

Hi Qexigator. I'd like to try out a feature for collaborative editing that I think might facilitate working on articles like alternative medicine. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help and, if this works out, we could then extend access to a communal library of sources to other editors of the article who are interested (regardless of POV).

I've set up a "group library" on a programme called Zotero. If you're willing, could you register on the Zotero website and then post your Zotero username here. I can then invite you to join a "library" of sources on Alt Med. Would you be willing to do that?

FiachraByrne (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're doing a good job of keeping the alt med article balanced between the various points of view. Given recent events, I'm not sure how long that will last. Just to push the issue again, you could register with Zotero using a throwaway internet account that wouldn't compromise your real life identity? FiachraByrne (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to but I'm even more of a duffer about web accounts than most other things, what with cookies and all, and one or two bad experiences in earlier internet days have given me the frights. Also, what would Zotero do for me? I couldn't make a search and table like yours at Phil. of.... You will have seen that at Alt. med, I have been sedulous about keeping existing sources, though if (as alleged) there are more recent, then maybe others more adept could do the necessary. If I stick to my last, that may be the better way to operate. Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Tables are pretty but they're just a means of conveying information (and didn't mean that I understood quite all the ramifications of how that article was created). Registering with Zotero would allow me to give you access to the full text of articles and (some) book chapters on alternative medicine or other topics. You just need an email to register and you don't need to download the software (which I'd recommend but it's not necessary for this purpose). Zotero is a (quasi-commercialised) academic project - they're not going to do anything nefarious. As you seem reasonably balanced I think it would be beneficial for the article if you had access to as many sources as possible.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, this is looking like an offer I cannot conscientiously refuse. But I have one more excuse: I must first consult the owner of this machine (yes, really) tomorrow. I see ahead a penitential treadmill, with occasional joy when labour is suspended. I have seen cases of edit frenzy burnout. But if all goes well, labour is its own reward. I've seen that too. Qexigator (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
--Consensus here (Aaaargh!) is against joining Z. for technical reasons. Is Asp. still working on updating sources? Fact is, if anything is invisible to open internet search, then what use is it for article sourcing? Sometimes (by another's courtesy) I have fetched a book from Amazon, such as Bivins. Her Introduction "Rival Systems of Medicine?" is intensely interesting. In a greater and more discriminating perspective (outwith the alt.med article, of course), Flexner's model (hat tip) is as fringe as any other. The article needs to be able to pinpoint when, where and how the expression "alternative medicine" came into vogue in English, otherwise it will remain in a state of evasive denial. I feel I have practically exhausted anything I am able usefully to do with it. But I have learnt quite a lot more about the state of the (N. American Federal) Union and its people, to supplement By rocking-chair across America (God bless her) as illustrated by favourite cartoonist, the late Ronald Searle.[154] [155] Perhaps I will be leaving the article alone, a lurking watcher, dabbling now and again in a small miscellany of other topics. Cheers!Qexigator (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL. OK, Qexigator, that's no problem. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane collaboration def of CAM[edit]

Hi Qexigator! I added the CC CAM def because Cochrane is extremely well regarded per WP:MEDRS and that definition sounded very impartial. What's your rationale for removing it? Looking forward to collaborating with you. Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not removed it. You could try paying more attention to the article, edit summaries and discussion at Talk. Qexigator (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
No need to get defensive, removed it from the lead to be specific. DVMt (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Must I repeat: try paying more attention to the article, edit summaries and discussion at Talk. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
As you are aware the talk page is very long and I do not have the time to investigate all the edit summaries. If you have a specific discussion you can refer me to that would be helpful. DVMt (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If on reflection you wish to discuss, please do so on Talk:Alternative medicine (not here) after attending to:

  • edit summaries here[156], [157],[158], [159].
  • Talk:Alternative medicine threads brginning: A Better Definition[160], Definitions a) - By medical associations; national or supra-national political bodies; other important representative bodies [vague]; or uniquely important and influential definitions[161], Update 2 [162] Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Surgeon General[edit]

Parking. Does need a secondary. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

By 1998 "alternative medicine" was prominent enough in North America for the United States Department of Health and Human Services to announce that the Surgeon General of the United States was launching new health resources at the government Gateway website. This included information on eight common alternative treatments (e.g. acupuncture, holistic and massage), common diseases and conditions, on nutrition/ diet/ lifestyle changes and on resources to help consumers decipher fraud and quackery, on how to find healthcare centers and doctors who practice alternative medicine.< ref >.United States Department of Health and Human Services March 18, 1998: U.S. Surgeon General launches new health resources at the government Gateway web site[163]< /ref >

Wake me up if our friend adds some actual content anywhere ... FiachraByrne (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
After the break. One gets to know some of the twists and quirks (H. B. Stowe)[164] peculiar to Wp editing, particularly when resort is made to this or that policy. If some newspaper or magazine or blogster has reported S-G's announcement, then OK? Qexigator (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. You can use the surgeon general as a source, of course, but you need another source to talk about the surgeon general's office and actions. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hat tip. But it seems some editors are wont to invoke certain rules in a lazy or arbitrary fashion (but not always, and sometimes same editors make or induce improvements). Qexigator (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Jesus yes and often highly selective in terms of what is removed (many more items in that article fall foul of policy). It's much different of course editing a controversial article than a little noticed one where you have a lot more freedom in terms of writing. Here, if you want the edit to have a chance of sticking, you have to adhere to policy which, at its most fundamental, means adhering to the secondary sources. We can't mint new definitions according to our own analysis. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Two sides of a coin, heads'n' tails, toss up between rigor scripti and mortis, which is head, which tail? Best not ask. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL. That's very bleak. The best freedom in contested areas is through command of the full range of sources available for a topic - that provides the greatest flexibility. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems with a field of battle in Bonaparte's day was that the smoke of the guns obscured the view of commanders and non-combatant reporters, as well as of officers and men engaged in the action. Editors in connection with other articles have often noticed sense and purpose becoming fogged not only from lack of citable sources but also from a failure to assess the value of an oversupply. Fortunately, alt.med. may be less prone to this. Qexigator (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Medical pluralism[edit]

Dunno, sorry - all I did was create the talkpage. Never seen the original article before. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and find something when I have a moment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I did a batch talkpage-creation and it got caught up in that. Hope I didn't cause any confusion. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Frederick Hiebel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humphry Rolleston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

Again, can you please start using the proper ciation templates? Almost all can be found here; the one for Hansard is here. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple Bar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your barnstar[edit]

I hope you don't mind my moving the barnstar to the preceding section. There were several "A barnstar for you" sections, so your barnstar (which I truly appreciate) would have been hard to find. Let's leave it at that :D Thank you very, very much once again. For a moment, I was sitting and wondering which one of us there was being terribly rude. Truly bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Keep up the good work per your other well-earned gongs. Qexigator (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Royal Family may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • together with succession and precedence.<ref>The official website of The British Monarchy{http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx]</ref>
  • {{chart| | | | | |)|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|v|-|-|-|v|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|.}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Royal Family, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Relatives and Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince George of Cambridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Registration district. dated 2 August 2013, appeared in the ''Daily Mail'' 3 August 2013)[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383616/Prince-George-William-Kate-formally-register-birth-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince George of Cambridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], Prince George is referred to by a [[territorial designation]] taken from his father's title (as noted in media notes released by Buckingham Palace on 22 July 2013<ref name=birth22>[http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Westphal (2) concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Westphal (2), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep calm and AGF[edit]

As September 2013 below. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Now removed, for sake of progress, [165], and this one too[166]. Let normal and happier services be resumed. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Please see further up the page where I placed "User:Qexigator, please answer the question" Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no wish to appear discourteous or offend anyone's feelings, but my only truthful answer is that your question is designed, presumably inadvertently, to avoid addressing the points I have been making. That may be due to the way I have expressed them, but that is all. Please do not dwell on it so as to impede your other contributions, whether or not the article is renamed. You will not need to be reminded that its content deserves to be as informative as can be, and suitably presented in encyclopedic fashion, for ordinary readers, but also with appropriate scholarly apparatus of notes and bibliography, also suitably presented. Qexigator (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You have already been sufficiently discourteous I think. Please answer the question. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Noted. Peremptory demand of that kind is not likely to evoke further discussion here. Qexigator (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps not.
Regarding however your latest edit, I have reverted by WP:BRD. There is no consensus for your edit at this time. Therefore I have reverted your edits to the lead. Attempting in this way to "adjust" a lead in support of an RM proposal is not well viewed and reference may be made to it in future review of the RM.
Also please note that it is not good practice to copy references provided by other editors in Talk page discussion and copy them into an article with your own twist in the middle of a discussion where there is no consensus. Firstly it gives the misleading impression that you know something about the subject. Secondly as you are not familiar with the provenance, content or context of the source you are not in a good position to place it. Thirdly as common courtesy if an editor has gone to the trouble of typing out a source then that editor can do the easy bit and place it in the article. Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I would also suggest that if you are uncertain about the appropriateness of changes to a lead in support of an ongoing RM that you ask a question on the matter at WT:RM. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

see Talk:Katarzyna Weiglowa: "Undo noted[167] The undoing editor or any other is welcome to improve on it in the usual way. but that editor and any other would do well to avoid jumping to false suppositions and publishing unfounded allegations of tag teaming. That editor's sensitivity on this matter is well understood and always respected." Qexigator (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

TalkBack re Alt Med[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Qexigator. You have new messages at Talk:Alternative_medicine.
Message added 19:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Privy Council[edit]

Sorry, but I do not understand your comments on the Irish case. The UK and dominions agreed that dominions could stop appeals to the Privy Council, which they all eventually did. How is Ireland exceptional? TFD (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I had not knowingly made any comment about that. Perhaps I may mention that I have not adopted the content of the obviously garbled quote, which bears no comparison with the law report, but is not far off the mark. The fact is, in the Irish successor state right of appeal to UK Privy Council was ended, unsurprisingly. Qexigator (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There was no right of appeal to the Privy Council until it was created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, recognizing Irish independence. TFD (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was agreed by the negotiating parties at that stage of the process of secession by the successor state, which resulted in 1949. The history of the appeals to the JCPC from Irish courts from 1922 to 1933 was tempestuous and short. Appeals to the JCPC represented to Irish republicans a further diminution of the already compromised sovereignty granted by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the emergent Irish Free State government fought strenuously to undermine it.[168]. De Valera seized each opportunity as it came. Qexigator 07:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) + (Irish) Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act, 1933, an act so to amend article 66 of the Constitution as to terminate the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. [16th November, 1933.][169] 13:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
+ In the time of the union of the kingdoms, the UK House of Lords had had jurisdiction in Irish appeals, [170]) such as Daniel O’Connell's appeal from a decision of the Irish Queen’s Bench in 1844 ( The Judicial Role of the House of Lords Before 1870 p.11)[171] --Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Qexigator. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board.
Message added 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AussieLegend () 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Qexigator (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes[edit]

Please review Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:STATUSQUO. When edits are opposed, as yours clearly have been (by multiple editors) we follow the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" and while we are discussing the dits, the status quo prevails. This means that your edits should not be restored to the article until there is consensus to do so. Remember, the burden is on the editor wishing to add content to justify its addition, not on editors who oppose the addition. --AussieLegend () 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my edits. I have revised, and your observations above, while well intended, are misplaced. Why not try some fresh thinking, address the points raised, and discuss reasonably on the merits free from edit tactics? Your further revert makes no contribution to improving the article. Now please address the question at the place you have opened for discussion in a constructive manner. Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have not misrepresented your edits. You've simply been asked to wait for consensus, and not only by me.[172] --AussieLegend () 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Your response noted. Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Official Languages of Canada[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Knoper (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Homemade! Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What a surprise to find this undeserved treat at tea-time! The origin of the word, first attested in English in 1650, is obscure but may come from a root meaning 'to tie, wrap up, pile up'...The tradition of layered breads by Turkic peoples in Central Asia suggests the "missing link" between the Central Asian folded or layered breads (which did not include nuts) and modern phyllo-based pastries like baklava would be the Azerbaijani dish Bakı pakhlavası, which involves layers of dough and nuts.[173] Now, that's what I call useful information, emblematic of Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And to think that I once believed my grandmother had mastered the art of preparing a baklava! I'd better send her the link to our article :) Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Institute of British Architects may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Journals/graphics/Builder_Group/Riba_Journal/July_2001/ribacrest1931.jpg[</ref> is attributed to Thomas Leverton Donaldson<ref>Oxford DNB 2004. Accessed 10 Feb 2014[http://

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Done 22:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Institute of British Architects may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2 All E.R. 151, both mentioned in "The law relating to the architect" by E. J. Rimmer, Stevens 1952).</ref> By the 1970's another issue had emerged affecting education for qualification and
  • *[http://riba.sirsidynix.net.uk/uhtbin/webcat RIBA/BALT library catalogue online[http://riba.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss first[edit]

Please discuss conflicts rather than edit warring. This is especially true when it involves an area that you don't happen to know the standards for, as with the "See also" section.

Note that WP:BRD explains the cycle: feel free to make a bold change, but after someone reverts this, discuss further rather than simply warring over it. HGilbert (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please do not rashly accuse of edit warring or make presumptions of ignorance. Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

German language[edit]

A heads up: your German language skills appear weak enough that it would be inadvisable to try to insert your own translations into articles, or especially to edit war over issues of translation. If you are in doubt about a translation, better to consult with a third-party who is a fluent speaker first...or at very least consult a German-English dictionary! (I am immediately thinking of the translation of bildende Kunst; see discussion on Talk:Rudolf Steiner. HGilbert (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not understood. Mistaken supposition. "Plastic Arts" per publication cited, trans. George Adams, known to be bilingual, translator for Rudolf Steiner at live lectures, contemporary with events in question.[174]. Nor is "fine arts" used in Collis translation of the authentic record cited, printed and published in USA. While a helpful intention can readily be attributed to the edit for "fine arts"[175] and to the above remark, it must be doubted whether in this particular instance the maker's personal opinion or preference can reasonably be expected to prevail over the sourced publications. Qexigator (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
+ If you need it, see ..."lectures translated almost verbatim by George Adams (Kaufman)"[176] ("see inside"). Qexigator (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We should use standard dictionaries for translation purposes. It is only of historical interest that the phrase was poorly or oddly translated in the past. HGilbert (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"We" are not translating, it is the sources we look to. The information available does not suggest those translator's were not competent or failed in any way on this point. Qexigator (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we agree that the official Goetheanum history of its own origins is the best source? Note that it refers to the original sections at the time of the Foundation Meeting. HGilbert (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
"official Goetheanum history": Please identify what you consider that to be with link if possible, and the English translation of it. Also what in it you seek agreement about as compared with what other source? Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rudolf Steiner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], ''The Life and Work of Rudolf Steiner from the Turn of the Century to his Death.'' p.53). Translated by Olin D. Wannamaker and Reginald E. Raab. 1955, Whittier Books (New York), 1955</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edith Maryon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (German ''Sektion für Bildende Künste''.<ref>Currently known as "fine arts" or "visual arts":

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Owen Barfield may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <ref>Publishing information:[[http://barfieldsociety.org/BiblioTitles.aspx] Online[http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA021/English/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anthroposophy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in the works of Fichte, the principal subject of Steiner's doctoral dissertation.<ref>Rostock, 1891{http://www.uni-rostock.de/en/about-us/alumni/prominent-alumni/historical-alumni/]</ref>
  • of the present age with insights from spiritual science."<ref>Steiner, GA27, Chapter 1</ref>) This movement now includes hundreds of M.D.s, chiefly in Europe and North America, and has its own

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Thank"ing a user[edit]

If you look at a diff of an edit, you will see that there is an option, next to the name of the editing user, to "Thank" that user. HGilbert (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, hope it worked. Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Careful of irrelevant citations[edit]

May I suggest that citations giving background for minor figures anyway Wiki-linked are irrelevant and distracting? E.g. von Stein -- we really don't need a citation giving a card catalog entry in a library for a book he wrote, unless this is somehow made relevant for Steiner's life.

In general, if someone is wiki-linked, any further documentation is superfluous; this is the advantage of hypertext. HGilbert (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"In general" - no contest. The link removed, which gave the book's full title may be borderline. More needed, is the direct link to chap.14. Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple references to a single work[edit]

There are several ways to handle multiple citations to the same book, e.g. Steiner's autobiography; see Wikipedia:Citations#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source. You have been repeatedly adding multiple references that are not cross-linked, which is not one of the preferred choices. Could you read the linked style sheet and comment?

At present the article uses the {{rp}} style. I'm happy to go with any format. I suppose we could use another style for Steiner sources -- or change everything over (not something I'd like to take the time to do). HGilbert (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Let those with the know-how do it, but do not spoil the actual text, sources or citations contributed by bona fide editors for the sake of such things. For example I previously pointed out the failure of the link to chap. 14. Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you are trying to preserve direct links. I've tried to incorporate these into the existing format: the citation goes to a general one for the book, but each citation should have its specific link. The format for references to a book that is cited in multiple locations is to put in the general reference, then a specific note for page/chapter. In case you want to add more, this would look like the following: HGilbert (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
<ref name=Auto/>{{rp|[http://www........Chapter_3 Chapter-or-page-number]}}.
OK, but not necessarily easily done if not used to it. Qexigator (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually it's not so complicate, but you wanted to supply separate links to each chapter. I had to figure out how to do that readily. . HGilbert (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Regulation of alternative medicine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Six-star rank may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • In 1955, promotion to [[General of the Armies] was proposed in Congress for [[Douglas MacArthur]], then ranking as a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again[edit]

I want to talk about this edit. So, does the "common law" in that article refers to the English law? So it's not about "jus commune", I guess. Komitsuki (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Briefly, that is so, yes. The Common Law (of England) grew from the Court of Common Pleas (England) and Court of King's Bench (England) and came to apply to British colonies in North America, now USA and Canada, and in other parts of the world which are now Commonwealth realms.
  • For a typical definition for English Common Law see[177]
  • "Full Definition of COMMON LAW: the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the United States except Louisiana."... (Concise Encyclopedia): Body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute. Under the common-law system, when a court decides and reports its decision concerning a particular case, the case becomes part of the body of law and can be used in later cases involving similar matters. ...Common law has been administered in the courts of England since the Middle Ages; it is also found in the U.S. and in most of the British Commonwealth. It is distinguished from civil law."
  • For historical background, see[178]: "English common law_ Originally, procedure in English local and feudal courts resembled quite closely that of other countries with a Germanic legal tradition. Unlike the continental European countries, however, England never romanized its indigenous procedure but instead developed a procedure of its own capable of substantial growth and adjustment. England’s ability to do this was likely a result of two factors, both related to the strong monarchical system that followed the Norman Conquest (1066): the creation of the jury system and the establishment of a centralized royal court system. The jury allowed the flexibility of lay participation while offering a substitute for the antiquated methods of proof of the traditional Germanic law—ordeal, trial by battle, and wager of law. The central (royal)courts led to the creation of a definite legal tradition, the common law, and to the administration of justice through permanent professional judges and their attendant clerks, instead of the popular assemblies or groups of wise men who rendered justice elsewhere...."
  • and see[179]: "common law, also called Anglo-American law, the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations). In this sense common law stands in contrast to the legal system derived from civil law, now widespread in continental Europe and elsewhere. In another, narrower, sense, common law is contrasted to the rules applied in English and American courts of equity and also to statute law. A standing expository difficulty is that, whereas the United Kingdom is a unitary state in international law, it comprises three major (and other minor) legal systems, those of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Historically, the common-law system in England (applied to Wales since 1536) has directly influenced that in Ireland but only partially influenced the distinct legal system in Scotland, which is therefore, except as regards international matters, not covered in this article. "
  • This resulted in the kingdom of England developing a different legal system from the countries of continental Europe (and Scotland). Those countries came to follow instead the ius commune "in its historical meaning...a combination of canon law and Roman law which formed the basis of a common system of legal thought in Western Europe from the rediscovery and reception of Justinian's Digest in the 12th and 13th centuries.

Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

+ See recent edits:[180] and[181]. --Qexigator (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Absolutely great for the edits. Thank you for this explanation. Komitsuki (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Last Warning: Disruptive editing[edit]

On the talk page of Six-star rank I have made MANY requests of you to engage in productive discussion.
You have IGNORED all of my requests.
I have drawn Wikipedia policy to your attention, including: WP:BRD, WP:OR, WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
You have made no reply.
I have warned you that I WILL report you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
You have made no reply.
If there is ANY reason why you think I should NOT report you for Disruptive editing, please explain.
Soon.
Otherwise, I WILL report you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

  • (cur | prev) 21:26, 22 July 2014‎ Qexigator (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,013 bytes) (+9,010)‎ . . (status quo for benefit of bona fide collaborative editing: undo repeated and needless blanking) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 21:20, 22 July 2014‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,003 bytes) (-9,010)‎ . . (Undid revision 617973821 by Qexigator (talk) - RIGHT! I'm off to 3RR!) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 21:17, 22 July 2014‎ Qexigator (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,013 bytes) (+9,010)‎ . . (status quo for benefit of bona fide collaborative editing: undo repeated and needless blanking) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 20:26, 22 July 2014‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,003 bytes) (-9,010)‎ . . (You have NO idea, do you. It is NOT vandalism to revert WP:OR, nor is it vandalism to revert irrelevant content. Go read WP:BRD. Next time you do this, I'll report you at WP:3RR.) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 17:43, 22 July 2014‎ Qexigator (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,013 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (→‎In the United Kingdom: main article, comparison) (undo | thank)
Thank you for your most recent reversion. I can now ALSO report you for edit warring.
I hope you enjoy being blocked. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia policy requires that I keep you informed. [FYI.] Pdfpdf (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI2

I have a few things to do for the next hour or so and won't be active on Wikipedia in that period. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal[edit]

Pdfpdf: You are the defaulter, as shown by the Talk page and the series of edits which have been made pursuant to another editor's proposal for expansion. Each and every one of those edits has been open for revision and reasoned and calm discussion in the usual way. Indiscriminate blanking is out of order by any reasonable reckoning. Qexigator (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense.
That statement doesn't rebut anything.
to another editor's proposal for expansion. - [Genuine question:] What proposal? Could you please indulge me and specifically point me to the piece of text you are referring to? Please? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But also: Please re-read what I've written. Please read the WP policies I've brought to your attention. Please answer the questions I've asked. Please engage in discussion. Please stop edit warring. Please stop making disruptive edits. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

I proposed expansion, so that the scope of the article would match its title. I added the {{Construction2}} template and added the sections about Dewey and North Korea. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in my view it was worth seeing how an expanded article would look, and whether it would make better sense as a whole to an inquiring reader with little prior knowledge to guide his/her understanding. It is not difficult to acknowledge that in the reasonable and experienced editorial judgment of others it was not proving a success (I express no view either way), but so virulent a reaction, with false claims of edit war was unexpected. If there is a problem is it due to lack of a consistent, accurate and succinct explanation, clear enough for novice readers, about the notion of a so-called six-star rank without any actual star insignia to show for it, unlike the ranks ranging from one- to five-star? Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Should you wish to demonstrate that you do not wish to engage in edit warring, and that you are not a disruptive editor, one method would be to show good faith and undo your own reversion. (Your choice.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Is there anybody out there? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)