User talk:RJC

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

List of Newspapers in Malawi[edit]

Thanks for improving the page! It's really nice to see someone adding to a page I made! And very good, thoughtful changes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management[edit]

Can we somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but the article should include the government links, the top US accreditation agencies of ACBSP and AACSB and the press articulat, and WSJ and FINRAs clear documentation of AAFM Accreditation/exams and degree requirements, and governmental referneces to AAFM.

Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM around the world. Focusing on one article as a negative event seems to be Black Washing. Please help the USA AAFM Board Article be legitimate and contain valid references, citations, and information.

Most of the original information that is included in todays article was written by you and OK with you last year. Not sure why it should be hidden now? Please help get this article right or please ask another editor to help who cares about the content of these financial related educational articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear RJC, let us compromise or bring in moderators with experience with Wall Street, FINRA or US Government. The AAFM information about their accredited standards is vital to the articles integrity. FINRA is the US regulatory authority which has a list of education and exam requirements and complaint system. Since this is the same information that CFA and CFP includes, it is important to show the registered programs of CFA, CFP and AAFM. AAFM recognizes ACBSP and AACSB courses and exams. Also, to compromise, the AAFM should have information about their ABA accredited law school's programs. Can you help, or do we need to bring in moderators to expand the integrity of the article? CertifiedFinancialAnalyst CertifiedFinancialAnalyst (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you have a new account, I think you should know something about the history of this article. It has a severe problem with the company's owners and former associates pumping up the company in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:ARTSPAM, etc. As a result of past discussions, the company's presence in directory listings were removed as puffery. You are restoring information that was added in the past by banned users. In some cases, innocent users were banned from Wikipedia as mistakenly-identified sockpuppets. Mediators have been brought in a number of times in the past to deal with these issues. Doing so again would not be productive, I think. RJC TalkContribs 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are several of the original versions of the AAFM article with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=392623589 or this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=383577091 I would like to compromise with you and work with other mediators to refurbish and expand the article while protecting the integrity of it also. It seems that the CFP, CFA and AAFM articles are constantly vandalized. Is there a way to protect them? Do you want me to find some other finance editors and request some help from neutral parties CertifiedFinancialAnalyst (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a way to protect pages so that only registered editors can change them, but the protection is temporary in order to maintain Wikipedia as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." See WP:PROT. We haven't had any vandalism since protection was lifted in October, so protection probably isn't necessary. The article as it stands is readable and contains verifiable information without in essence mirroring the AAFM's website. One of the versions you suggest as acceptable was made by a user banned for editing warring in favor of that version and sockpuppetry. I can't say that restoring that information would be an improvement. RJC TalkContribs 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Based on your insights, I researched the history, and before he edit war, I found some articles from your edits. Here are two original versions from your edits. Can we repost the substance of your original articles because they are more informative and authentic with notable references. My objective is to keep a neutral point of view and compromise by using your prior works.

RJC #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=246379035

RJC #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=242810367 CertifiedFinancialAnalyst (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see the NPOV issue to be addressed with the current state of the article, let alone how removing criticism of the company while listing every product they sell would make it more neutral. You are suggesting reverting the article to decidedly inferior versions from three years ago that blatantly violated Wikipedia guidelines. The state of the article you point to required maintenence tags. I nominated that version of the article for deletion (as AAFM hadn't yet been publically criticized by the Wall Street Journal enough to meet the notability requirements). I gave reasons for trimming the article back in July 2009, and those reasons still hold. RJC TalkContribs 17:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are CFA CFP and other organizational WIKI examples of format. The Americna Academy page would be better served if we updated it to mirror similar pages.
Here are older examples of NPOV versions of the American Academy that were published after your RJC review.
Would like to take your expanded version and clean it up and then add the consumer protection links, registered accredited programs and also the links for WSJ and FINRA investor education which is already shown in both CFA and CFP pages.
With this compromise, we can maintain consistency for CFA, CFP and AAFM.
It is not clear if anyone has been allowed to contribute to this article in over a year.
CertifiedFinancialAnalyst (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)CertifiedFinancialAnalystCertifiedFinancialAnalyst (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
These seem to be the same points as made before. What about the article's present state violates WP:NPOV? How would including this additional information not be puffery in violation of WP:ARTSPAM? Telling me what you want added in more detail does not tell me why adding it would be an improvement on the article or in line with Wikipedia guidelines. RJC TalkContribs 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The quotes above state, "I gave reasons for trimming the article back in July 2009" However, these revisions are from 2010 after the article was cleaned up and made neutral. These examples below contain much useful information and links

I propose that we compromise and bring in some neutral parties to bring the article back to where it contains relevant citations and information that parallels similar articles from the same type of organization such as CFP or CFA. CFP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Financial_Planner CFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst

The CFA and CFP articles are much longer with more citations. Example, CFA is over 3400 words with over 30 citations. AAFM used to have a similar amount of citations and information, but now is only about 430 words.

In sum, the AAFM article should be allowed to mirror organization that are exact or similar in nature such as CFP and CFA or PMI Institute.

Can you help improve the article? CertifiedFinancialAnalyst (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The only additional information those versions have is a list of products sold. One also omits any mention of the Wall Street Journal's exposé. The CFA and CFP articles are longer and have more citations because more information can be verified about them through reliable sources. Because of the AAFM's tendency to make outrageous claims about itself on its website, it does not qualify as a reliable source about itself; it raises almost every red flag at WP:SELFPUB. You have yet to answer any of my questions. RJC TalkContribs 14:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Dear RJC, We must remove the illegal mistakes about degrees and such. Degrees in the USA are offered by universities and colleges and NOT organizations such as AAFM, CFA or CFP.

All of your criticism about the AAFM remains. I did not remove any of it. Your criticism continues to be the majority of the articles content. I merely added the new evidence and signed contracts that are published on the AAFM website that debunk the Wall Street Journal mistakes. Let's try to compromise by creating a real article. I have not added any products or services to promote. I merely edited the article to add references and citations from the government, law school, US financial regulatory authority.

Further, without AAFM citations about accredited programs such as the AAFM sponsored graduate law school certification program and the US government approved ACBSP accreditation alliance, the article is deceiving and intentionally biased.

It appears that you are a senior editor of WIKI and know all of the rules about COI and NPOV. Maybe you can ask for some help with this article to improve it with a balanced approach?

History shows that you are the only editor that seems to be concerned about this article, but we need some help as it appears that there has been 3 years of vandalism to this article.

If you have not read the new links, the signed contracts, evidence and alliance citations in the new press release by the AAFM, maybe you should [1] This evidence, seems to contradict the entire WSJ article. Historically, it appears that you were the editor who caught the WSJ with the mistakes in the first place.

Cfpcertified (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)CFPCertifiedCfpcertified (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my responses to CertifiedFinancialAnalyst earlier in this section. Your comment is identical in form and content to that one, and my reaction is the same. RJC TalkContribs 16:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Natural Law[edit]

Modified the Plato section. See what you think. Oxford73 (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) This is referring to the Natural Law page. Oxford73 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

dialectic[edit]

Just looking at the Plato page and there does not seem to be anything about the dialectic. Also noticed it is a restricted page. Not come across one of those before. Would you like to write something about the dialectic in Plato? Oxford73 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have the time to contribute something that large right now. I think such a section would have to begin with something like "the role of dialectic in Plato's thought is contested." That would require a literature review rather than cobbling together what I think Plato was getting at. I had to cut back on the amount of time I was spending of Wikipedia as it is. You should have enough edits by now to edit that page, however. RJC TalkContribs 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the contested nature of it. Oxford73 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Added a very brief summary re dialectic. Oxford73 (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Page blanking[edit]

Yes thanks for adding that, I was going to go back and inform the person that the "now you can't see how naughty I've been" approach is akin to cats who have their hind legs and tail sticking out from behind the sofa etc. and assume that they can't be seen.

I am just manually reverting the edits that this person made to Mongol Empire, I do not think they are a native, Greekish I would say by the user name and the articles edited, in this article they have changed eventually for basically concerning the reach of the empire, that is totally not the same meaning or intention.

If you are an admin, please keep an eye on this person, which I suppose you're doing, I just totally reverted the Alexander the Great article where the person removed all of the adverbs, I checked one source and the adverb was used in the source, it appears to be a well constructed and researched article so for someone to just stomp in and remove nuanced material is a bit off, really. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not an admin. I normally don't watch user pages when I put a warning template on them, but the fact that this user removed it immediately caught my eye. They seem to be inexperienced. They used to change American English to British English, but stopped after a couple of warnings. Now they don't like adverbs, apparently, but I think that they can be persuaded (even if they require more persuasion than most). RJC TalkContribs 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the feedback. I really do think Wikipedia is guilty of false advertising "the encyclopædia anyone can edit" is just not true, a lot of people just assume that means can do whatever they like. IMHO. Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: well last night the user blanked their page again and I saw it on my watchlist within a couple of minutes, so I decided to put the heebie-jeebies up them and it seems to have had some effect - Iritakamas. A little comic relief! CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your tone with the editor in question may be getting a little caustic. RJC TalkContribs 16:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my further comments were intended to get the points across that:
  • you can't just go round changing articles because they don't reflect your point of view (there are terrible edit wars and page protections all over the place due to ethnic disputes, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, or Armenians and Turks to give a couple of examples)
  • that if they are not a native speaker they should be very careful about meddling with other people's writing
And if the end result is that the person understands and stops their disruptive editing, isn't that a good thing? I am not launching a personal attack on them, let's say it's just a mild scolding. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Things always come across more harshly in writing, where there are no pauses, knowing smiles, conciliatory hand gestures, etc. If the user in question doesn't think you are authoritative, a scolding can come across as an unreasonable attack, the only question then being whether they shrink before it. If the user does think that some editors wield more authority than others and that you are one of these, the result may be to drive them away from the project, since then it seems that the project rather than an editor disapproves of them. Both results are generally discouraged. I like templating user talk pages using WP:TWINKLE because the template messages are so tepid that they are unlikely to arouse a combative or unduly submissive response from people who make good-faith errors of judgment. RJC TalkContribs 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, point taken, but when you try to post friendly AGF messages to people's talk pages and they just blank the page, one wonders how long the twinkle templates will stay put? Anyway, I will refrain from late-night admonishing. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On The Genealogy of Morality...[edit]

I think that you should add the picture from the Oxford Edition of On The Genealogy of Morality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jar2187 (talkcontribs) 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Morality of science[edit]

Hi. Yes, I have started many disambituations pages similar to this one, only that some have hundreds of links and many see alsos. However, if you think it would be better off as a portal, we could start a discussion on Portal talk:Science. I created the page because there was a science of morality article, so I figured why not have a morality of science page. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you changed the dates from BCE to BC on Aegean civilizations. The wikipedia guideline on this (WP:ERA) suggests leaving dates as they are. RJC 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the feedback. Yes, you're correct, the Wikipedia guidelines do say that. However, under Year numbering systems in the guidelines it also says, "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but be consistent within the same article." Since the article uses both formats, I chose to standardize it on the more established (traditional) BC-AD format. Moreover, it avoids the politically-trendy look of the BCE-CE format.
  • Regarding the date "1450" in the article's first paragraph, I added "BC," as I presume that that date refers to 1450 BC. Without the BC, the implied date is 1450 AD. Hackercraft (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The article already has BCE notation, so it should not be switched. If you like, go through the article history and determine which was used first. That is the default way of reconciling conflict. But we do not change to one's own preferred method. I will say that BCE is not just more politically correct. It avoids the rather embarrassing-sounding statement that the Gospel of Matthew indicates that the latest date for Christ's birth is four years before Christ, and that the Year of our Lord refers to some time after the Lord had turned four. RJC TalkContribs 16:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


  • As I indicated in my first response, the article already uses both formats. Therefore, I did not "change to one's own preferred method," but changed it to make it internally consistent (iaw. Wiki guidelines), using, obviously, the format I thought most logical.
  • Since the pro-'BCE-CE' position is usually infused with anti-Religion undertones, I would perfer not to engage that debate. Sufice it to say, that the BC-AD format is long-established, and universally understood.
  • By the way, what about "1450" in the first paragraph? Hackercraft (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

European University[edit]

Hi RJC, Just wanted to say thank you for improving my edit insertion for the QS ranking on this article. I've edited the last change you made as I felt the need to state in articles "what is" as opposed to "what isn't" in referenced citations. I hope we can agree on this to keep the neutrality of the article. Auditguy (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you assist?[edit]

I wonder if you'd be able to assist. I reverted twice an edit by editor, Nirjhara, in the article Indo-Aryan migration because I felt it was worded POV. I left clear comments on why it was removed, but the editor has put it back in twice without comment. When I looked into the editor's history I found they had added it to Proto-Indo-Europeans (and other articles), but it was removed by you and Dougweller in both cases for being fringe theory. Although I follow this article, I'm not knowledge on the topic and was hoping you may be able to step in? Thanks. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Machiavelli[edit]

Hi. As one of the main contributors to the Machiavelli article can you have a look on the talk page and consider the question of secondary sources. I see the other editors point, but am thinking it might lead to complaints that the article has poor sourcing and is too much of a pure summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant The Prince.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
And then I noticed you already commented. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1871[edit]

What part of the Act as passed that I posted is inaccurate? I tried to be very careful and find the exact wording of the act as it was originally passed. Also, I tend to disagree that the whole act was "too much." The purpose of this act and its scope is hard for people nowadays to understand without reading the original wording. The part that is left today in the US Code is such a small percentage of the original act that one does not get whole flavor of the really sweeping nature of this bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbow (talkcontribs) 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy part of sec. 2 was missing, as was the stipulation that those arrested under sec. 3 were to be dealt with through the ordinary legal system, the proviso of sec. 6, and all of sec. 7. As to including the act's text in the article, that is better left to our sister project, Wikisource; it is there if anyone wants to read it. It is better for us to summarize what the act did than ask readers to parse legislativese. I think readers can understand the purpose and scope of the act if we tell them about it in plain English. RJC TalkContribs 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How would you pronounce Nicomachean?[edit]

I would be interested in your opinion. I know Greek does sometimes get strangely Anglicised (I have included mention of such a pronunciation in the Nous article), but I do not think I ever heard anyone say the "i" in Nicomachus or Nicomachean anything like the way the brand "Nike" is pronounced, only the way people say "Nicholas", i.e. something like the original Greek. But the first line of Nicomachean Ethics has a source for such a diphthong pronunciation. (I wonder if the source really mentions the Ethics or just gives a general remark that Greek I often becomes "ai".) Is this something people say in American academia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't go with /naɪ kɒməˈkiːən/, either. I've always heard it like Nicholas, as well. Pearson is a good publisher, but I wonder if Longman didn't just mechanically transcribe the name according to some rule. My copies of the Ethics are in my office, so I can't check to see if any of them say how to pronounce it. RJC TalkContribs 14:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Or, we could go with this website as a reliable source. RJC TalkContribs 14:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's move this discussion to the article talk page and if we get no responses, we should change it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Protagoras (dialogue)[edit]

Hello, you've removed my note form the article Protagoras (dialogue). Please forgive me for my wrong grammar in the edits summary, the correct version of which shoud be "refining my note related to the Nietzsche's future criticism." But let me to defend myself a little against supposed original research. Nietzsche wasn't my source. The whole content of the note was supported by the dialogue and was designed to remind only the importance of the passage about "the impossibility of doing good willingly (or voluntarily) and necessity of knowledge for not being bad." This passage was as a whole omitted in the article. But I must admit, that Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil didn't quote hís source and wrote only about Socrates and Plato (§190). The themes are however equal... Chomsky (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But I understand, that to have an independent source supporting the connection between Nietzsche and Plato would be the best... Chomsky (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added the omitted text into the article, already without any refference to Nietzsche. Chomsky (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction of my poor attempt... Chomsky (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Defense of Barron's[edit]

I must confess that a book, which I used from the Barron's Educational Series, Inc., don't contain any connection between Beyond Good and Evil and an idea of superman. I only still tend to original research myself... Chomsky (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consider a proposal[edit]

Dear RJC, please give your thoughts on a proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#.22Genetic_Anthropology.22_section_needs_updating gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing Eliza Dushku in infobox for Albanians, in favour of unknown Gjeke Marinaj[edit]

Hi!

Can you explain why you removed Eliza Dushku and instead inserted Gjeke Marinaj ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=443970290

Eliza Dushku should definately be in the infobox, Gjeke Marinaj is a translator, not known by nobody.37.17.252.233 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. I added a wikilink. Johnspring did that in response to a previous user's replacing Marinaj with Dushku. The version on the left of a diff is the old version; the user who made the changes is listed on the right of the diff. RJC TalkContribs 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fifth Letter[edit]

Whoops, you're absolutely right about Plato's Fifth Letter. I got my wording backwards with that edit. Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong about Poseidon[edit]

RJC, I see you take issue with me correcting a rule breach just because it was a few years ago. It's actually not quite as simple as this. Ever since User:Wetman broke the rules in Dec 2007 by taking it upon himself to change the whole article Poseidon from BC to BCE, multiple editors have noticed the problem and tried to correct it, but he keeps changing it back. He was even doing this in the article as recently as last year here, where he didn't even write an edit summary even though he wasn't reverting vandalism. Is that recent enough for you? The problem has only lasted this long because the editor who originally broke the rule has hijacked the article, treating it as his own and preventing other people from correcting it. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

In case you didn't realise, the article has never used CE/BCE exclusively. Even up until the edit before I corrected the issue, the article contained both formats. In fact, when you reverted my correction (for no legitimate reason), you restored it to the conflicting state. When User:Wetman added his own editorial note to the main article a year ago here, claiming that the article had used CE/BCE since 2007, this was clearly wrong not only because of the earlier interruptions from people correcting his rule breach, but also because the article still had at least 7 instances of BC/AD. Therefore yesterday, I corrected an unresolved issue that had plagued the article on and off for quite a long time. I'm not writing this to ask for thanks; just to convince you to stop being disruptive and treating the article like your own. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC))
You're pushing an agenda. Excuse me if I don't take you seriously. RJC TalkContribs 15:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
My only agenda is to protect the English language. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

Twinkle use[edit]

A reminder -- Twinkle reverts are only to be used to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Twinkle's Rollback or its templating? RJC TalkContribs 23:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the reverts, however the template warning was also, arguably, not wise. As a participant in the revert war you shouldn't be warning your opponent about warring (regardless of how correct your version might be), as that just inflames the situation. Leave warnings to an outside party. If you want to urge the other user to participate in a discussion about the changes, that would probably be the more effective option. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If Twinkle is to be used only to revert vandalism, why is only one of the rollbacks for vandalism? The Twinkle page itself says that it should not be used for non-vandalism changes unless an edit summary is given, not that it should not be used for non-vandalism changes at all. RJC TalkContribs 04:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right, although the Twinkle instructions specify an "appropriate" edit summary. "You must be joking" and "this is disruptive" aren't terribly appropriate for a content dispute. Equazcion (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Sorry to revert you, but please see [1]. There has been a long saga with those sock puppet accounts. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly me. I think I actually remember that case. I wonder if there is a way to get a note to show up on the diffs? Or perhaps clearer edit summaries in the reverts that specify that this is a User:Lung salad problem so it doesn't look like an edit war. RJC TalkContribs 14:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all. They are working/talking now about watch list items anyway, so there are many discussions. But please feel free to suggest that summary line issue on WP:VP technical. I guess the clue is usually to know users such as Materialscientist who are generally very careful and he spends who knows how many hours a day checking items and managing the DYK issue. So no problem at all. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Hi, You restored a map I had deleted from [[2]]. I can accept user created maps, but this one is just sloppy. For example it shows little or no Haplogroup R1a in Iran which is factually wrong. Other areas of high concentration such as Siberia have also been omitted. The article already has a map based on Underhill et al. (2009), so there is no need to retain this erroneous one. Best, JS (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be right. I've reverted my reversion. RJC TalkContribs 22:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. JS (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Leviathan Part I[edit]

Thanks for your changes on the Leviathan (book) page in response to my comments. I did a little copy editing to your entry, which I hope you find satisfactory. Also, given the banner on the page calling for more references, I might suggest adding more citations to the entry. Socialtheorynow (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More citations would be a good idea. I wrote the section as a kind of scaffolding to be filled in later. I reverted your edits since they changed the meaning of some sentences and removed the forcefulness from others. RJC TalkContribs 14:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Roberto Mangabeira Unger‎[edit]

It may not be quite your thing, but Roberto Mangabeira Unger‎ has some of the same issues (IMO) as Hobbes, so to speak. Perhaps you would take a look? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophist (dialogue), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman (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) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

AAFM - FYI[edit]

As noted here, the following has been posted online and a rough facsimile was emailed to the functionaries email list earlier this week, and then forwarded to the Foundation legal department.  Frank  |  talk  04:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats[edit]

Please don't shoot me; I'm the messenger. In case you've not seen it already at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management, I'm here to let you know about this page; it seems a thoroughly frivolous complaint, but it still might be worth your attention, since you are named in the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is not a complaint. A complaint is filed with a court. This talks about complaining to Wikimedia, probably because courts have punitive sanctions to use against people who file frivolous lawsuits—and their attorneys. RJC TalkContribs 17:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits in Ancient Greek philosophy[edit]

Hi there, RJC!

I saw you reverted some edits I made on this article, and was wondering whether you would discuss them with me. As to the question about "substance" and "origin": Simplicius informs us (Dieltz/Kranz II.9) that Anaximander thought the beginning (ἀρχή) and element (στοιχεῖον) of all things (τῶν ὄντων) was the apeiron. In Pseudo-Plutarch we find that Anaximander's apeiron was "the whole cause of the whole creation and ruin [of the world]". (D/K II.10; Cf. D/K II.14)

To determine what he meant by this is hard enough as it is, so I used the interpretation found in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Plato by Cohen, Curd and Reeve. This work calls the apeiron the "material stuff out of which everything in the universe comes", (p. 10) which I worded as "substance", and "origin of the universe" ("substratum", I think, being hard to understand for the average reader). Furthermore the Greek term ἀρχή can be translated as "origin", although "first principle" may look better in this case.

I'd really like your input on this! Regards, Bahnheckl (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I think "origin of the universe" carries connotations of an event rather than something like "first principle" or "element." Substratum may be overly academic, I agree. I'm not sure we have a good word (or phrase) in English that conveys what is meant by an arche in ancient philosophy, however. "Ultimate, underlying source of things" perhaps?
As to "substance," I think that the apeiron is a bit too nebulous to be a substance. Or, it is a substance in a manner of speaking now foreign to English usage. In common, non-technical usage, a substance is a species of "stuff." The apeiron, on the other hand, is explicitly not an element.
could not be water or any of the classical elements but was instead something "unlimited" or "indefinite". He called this substance the apeiron (Greek for "unlimited"). He reasoned that opposites must both be manifestations of some underlying unity, because a thing can become its opposite (e.g., a hot thing cold and vice versa). He assigned all of the classical elements to one extreme or another. Water, for example, is wet and so the opposite of dry. seems less clear than ,could not be water or any of the classical elements but was instead something "unlimited" or "indefinite," the apeiron; his reasoning was that because the world seems to consist of opposites (e.g., hot and cold) yet a thing can become its opposite (e.g., a hot thing cold), they cannot truly be opposites but rather must both be manifestations of some underlying substratrum that is neither, while all of the classical elements are one extreme or another (e.g., water is wet and so the opposite of dry). The latter is a tangled mess, of course, but it doesn't suggest that Thales "assigned" elements to categories, for example. It preserves the latter clauses are reasons for his conclusion, rather than as separate statements.
I would suggest splitting the last clause (while all of the classical elements are one extreme, etc.) from the rest of the sentence. Replace it with, This substratum could not be any of the classical elements, since they were one extreme or another. For example, water is wet, the opposite of dry, while fire is dry, the opposite of wet.
How does this sound? RJC TalkContribs 23:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
How about we keep my phrasing except for the assignment of elements (and use yours there)? (arche, as I understand now, is an origin and "something that survives what emerges from it". It is usually translated as "principle". I think the article should contain both these qualifications to make it understandable and fun for the lay reader. See Dancy, R. M. (1989) 'Thales, Anaximander, and infinity' in: Apeiron XXII : 149-190.)
I still have a problem with translating arche as substance or suggesting that Anaxagoras considered the apeiron to be what we would call a substance. Saying that he called the "unlimited" the "apeiron" is a bit misleading, since apeiron is simply the Greek word for "unlimited." Also, I think the fact that the world appears to be composed of opposites is important for understanding why Anaxagoras had to posit the apeiron: the world cannot be as it appears. Your version certainly has a simpler sentence structure, but I think it is less accurate than the version currently in the article.
How about the following: could not be water or any of the classical elements but was instead something "unlimited" or "indefinite" (in Greek, the apeiron). He began from the observation that the world seems to consist of opposites (e.g., hot and cold), yet a thing can become its opposite (e.g., a hot thing cold). Therefore, they cannot truly be opposites but rather must both be manifestations of some underlying unity that is neither. This underlying unity (substratum, arche) could not be any of the classical elements, since they were one extreme or another. For example, water is wet, the opposite of dry, while fire is dry, the opposite of wet. RJC TalkContribs 03:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Bahnheckl (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is-ought[edit]

If you have a reference, why didn't you reintroduce the text with the citation instead of reverting my edit? I had know way of knowing if the text was true, so I certainly could not add a citation myself (as I did with the missing citation for the Huntington quote). It has been sitting there for five years awaiting a citation, so cutting it out was appropriate when I did it. Eodcarl (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I did just add a citation, as I said I would do in my edit summary. It is easier to revert and revise than put things in anew. And do you really think that no one has ever attacked the theory of natural rights on the basis that you cannot draw morals from nature? Whatever do you think the opponents of natural rights theory say? RJC TalkContribs 22:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It might be easier, but it is not what Wikipedia suggests as the preferred practice. As I said, I have no opinion on that passage, but an unsourced passage should not sit for five years in want of a citation. That was the only reason I deleted it. What about the other missing citation? Eodcarl (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea that Wikipedia had a policy on minute-by-minute workflow. Could you point me toward it? As to what to do with any remaining [citation needed] tags, there is Template:Citation needed#How to respond to this tag. RJC TalkContribs 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the preference to edit vs. revert. A was not being disrespectful or snarky and it seems I'm getting a bit of that from you. If that was not your intent, I'm sorry. You reinstated text still requiring a citation. Please provide one. Eodcarl (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Locke, Strauss, and Ashcraft[edit]

In regard to my recent excision of some material for Locke's Second Treatise, and your reversion of it, I've raised some questions on the article's talk page. I think the existing paragraph is sufficiently muddled logically that the article would be better without it. But, fair enough, this needs to be argued for, so I've outlined the argument there. No interest in starting an edit war for no good reason. 2601:7:2340:10:9DF4:B6F5:6844:65E2 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent reversion in regard to the unjust and indifferent outnumbering the just in the sections you describe. It seems to me that the key line is in §124: "yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases." The structure of Locke's argument here is actually more general: he says that people let their passions control them or have failed to study the law of nature, so that they are bad judges in their own case. This restates the argument in favor of a neutral judge, rather than suggesting a general habit of injustice from some subset of persons. People still know the law of nature, this seems to assume, and still seek to apply it; they just do this badly. As the discussion following right after makes clear, it is a misdirected zeal for justice that causes mistaken exercises of the executive right, which is what creates most of the violence he describes. Thus the problem is not that the just are outnumbered by the unjust, but that most are not good at being just in their own case, even if they're well-motivated and good judges elsewhere (e.g. on juries or of tyrannical governments).
Perhaps what's at stake is a disagreement about the meaning of "justice" between our two interpretations. I see the just as those who accept the force of the laws of nature (in contrast to the animalistic few who must simply be destroyed), whereas perhaps you see the just as those who are trustworthy in their own case as well? Given Locke's general concerns with the need for a neutral judge, it seems more accurate to me to say that he's describing a generalized human tendency of failure here, which even the most just shouldn't be expected to avoid reliably. His wording seems to me fully generalized. But perhaps your view would be that I'm reading too much into the telos of the neutral judge?2601:7:2300:13F:1D9E:7539:9178:C4B0 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I agree with it mostly, as a matter of interpretation, although Locke does not call the man with a "good heart" who does injustice just. I don't even think he would say he has a good heart. My objection to the edit wasn't so lofty, however. It was textual. I was referring to the fact that, even if someone knows the law of nature and judges it rightly, without undue interest, the force to put that judgment into action is often wanting, meaning he can't get a posse together big enough to overcome the unjust. His argument is that no one knows it, and even if they did, they wouldn't apply it right, and even if they did, they are too weak to enforce it. RJC TalkContribs 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Got it. That certainly makes sense to call attention to. I'd been reading that into the mention of a commonly recognized neutral judge in the sentence above it, but I can see why the absence of enforcement capacity deserves separate mention. I'll put something along those lines back in, after thinking about wording a bit; the coordination concerns that Locke notes here are a bit slippery to convey quickly.2601:7:2300:13F:C137:4D70:60FA:220F (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for permission from BBC Worldwide[edit]

sweta sriram <swetasriram@gmail.com>, Vrishali Kemkar <vrishali.kemkar@bbcwindia.com>, Rithika Rajachandran <Rithika.Rajachandran@bbcwindia.com>, "kundesanket@gmail.com" <kundesanket@gmail.com>

Hello!


Greetings from Mumbai, India

We, at BBC Worldwide, are producing a series involving human-interest stories, based on history and mythology, where the storytelling style is modern docu-contemporary. The series is essentially an unprecedented, definitive list of the people, moments and stories that have contributed to India as we know it today. This list covers the most iconic faces, incidents and things in Indian history, across different categories.

We would like to use some material we found online, as visual support for this series. Please do let us know if you hold the rights for the following images and if yes then please let us know how we can proceed on acquiring this visual as well as getting permissions to use the same. We will, of course, provide an acknowledgment/credit/ footage courtesy on the show.

Link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Machiavelli_Principe_Cover_Page.jpg

Hope to hear from you at the earliest. We really appreciate the help.


Thanking you,


Warm Regards,

Tangella Madhavi

Researcher BBC Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.154.7 (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) RJC doesn't hold any rights for the photo; in fact, that would be disallowed (most content on Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0). In this instance, you may freely use the content, as it in the public domain. Cheers, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

May I bring your attention to...[edit]

this? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nietzsche[edit]

You reverted my removal of a clarification tag on the pronunciation of Nietzsche, and in your edit summary asked whether there should be a second s after the tz. What do you mean? Are you asking about the spelling or the pronunciation? The spelling consists of tz and sch, which represent the sounds /ts/ and /ʃ/. I don't see a second s here; there's only one, in both spelling and pronunciation. If you're referring to the esh (ʃ), that's not a second s. Either way, I don't understand what you mean; please explain. — Eru·tuon 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were referring to something we had discussed back in 2010, and we never got a resolution beyond what native speakers thought. I didn't see that the citation needed tag you removed involved how we should mangle the German pronunciation in English. RJC TalkContribs 03:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).