User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI: Difference between revisions
→Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Proposed decision: rm irc stuff, see where it probably came from |
|||
| Line 1,265: | Line 1,265: | ||
:: Where is this emanating from? No I wouldn't be happy for him to do this. While I agree it is silly that this is happening, I don't agree it's silly to oppose attempts to exploit the format of text for someone's advantage nor am I convinced I am being petty (as it appears Ryan is trying to make out) by caring. Surely it would only be fair if all headers on that talk pages had sub-headers separating individual user comments and arbitrator comments then? No? You're just giving a green light for anyone in future to go edit [and edit-war for] the format of every talk page as it most suits themselves knowing full well that anyone who opposes this will be singled out and accused of pettiness because the editorializing party "feels strongly". No no. Do what you like, Ryan, but you ain't getting my approval. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
:: Where is this emanating from? No I wouldn't be happy for him to do this. While I agree it is silly that this is happening, I don't agree it's silly to oppose attempts to exploit the format of text for someone's advantage nor am I convinced I am being petty (as it appears Ryan is trying to make out) by caring. Surely it would only be fair if all headers on that talk pages had sub-headers separating individual user comments and arbitrator comments then? No? You're just giving a green light for anyone in future to go edit [and edit-war for] the format of every talk page as it most suits themselves knowing full well that anyone who opposes this will be singled out and accused of pettiness because the editorializing party "feels strongly". No no. Do what you like, Ryan, but you ain't getting my approval. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
Hi, Deacon. An out-of-context statements like: ''"Bigger amount of posts, wouldn't make your claims look more credible, actually"'' is a personal attack, obviously. Its only purpose is to ridicule Piotrus as the one thinking that "bigger amount of post would make his claims (what claims?) more credible". This is obvious baiting, too. If you need to discuss this with Tymek, why not use his talk page instead of starting an off topic thread in the RfA's talk page ? Cheers. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:44, 1 December 2008
 |
|---|
| 22 July 2024 |
|
|
Kirkcaldy article
hello
since you are involved with wikiProject Scotland, if you wouldn't mind looking at this Kirkcaldy revamp (Phase 1) and see if you approve with my plan to revamp the Kirkcaldy article. i will upload four other phases in the near future. this is what is it looking like at the moment, Kirkcaldy the article desperately needs a new introduction and history section as well as more book references in particular, of which i'm planning to do all the work for (which after then, others can change bits or therefore)
i have been concerned over the state of this article for a while and feel it is not going to get sorted, if i don't do something about it. i would like my work to be presented as i have worked hard to ensure that this is both worthy and decent.
P.S. i intend to revise the info in phase I, probably later on, so it would be better to view them, if you don't mind. Kilnburn (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
List of Germanic peoples
Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim. I suggest that List of Germanic peoples be renamed to List of Ancient Germanic peoples. Please direct your objections to the talkpage YET AGAIN. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
Thankyou Deacon :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted :) Good call. Pedro : Chat 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bloody Hell, you've taken my breath away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks!
|
RfA: Many thanks | |
| Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Differences
Deacon, In my opinion there is a distinction between Scotland, Ireland, and England! If Sarah wants to make this distinction she has every right to! If there where none, why did Ireland gain their independence and why do so many people want the same for Scotland? I don't feel British, (though I can't deny the political reality of it) I feel Scottish, which immediately makes me distinct from English people. I don't presume to tell you how you should feel, but there are many with my opinion in Scotland. This does not make me anti-English, it makes me Pro- Scottish. Jack forbes (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! Jack forbes (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
missed
Cheers - a bit of both really although mostly because ive been variously in the states/changing jobs/moving house over the last few months hence my absence. I've been sucked back in over the last week or so though il probably only stick around until the next idiotic edit war/argument kicks off and irritates me into leaving for another couple of months. Glad to see your possession of a vaguely rational mind and appreciation for facts over wishful thinking hasnt yet seen you kicked out of the admins club ;). siarach (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Stuff
With Wikipedia, there's thousands of editors with thousands of PoVs (which is normal). Sarah kinda mistrusts Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Great Britain and Ireland
Hi, I reverted your revert of GB&I. With respect, the original proposal was to merge the article with the "List of islands in the British Isles" article, and redirect this page to "British Isles". At that time, I agreed that it was not obvious why the article existed (only as a POV fork), but since that proposal, I've added to the article (and bear in mind that the article is still a stub). The article is now already covering different material that is not covered by either "British Isles" or "List of", and I intend to add more along the lines of geology, etc. In other words, to keep the article as a geographic term (no political/historic stuff except to refer to other articles). I've asked Batsun (as the original proposer) to take a look. I posted this on the Talk page before your revert. I'd also obviously appreciate if you take a look and see the gist of where the article is going. --Bardcom (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Religious houses
Thanks for doing the changes. I'm sort of thinking the article itself would be the place to do this with a work in progress tag. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Battle of 750?
Experience tells me that I'm sure you're the man who would know of a certain Pictish battle during the year 750, that "supposedly" occured in Strathblane. It seems to be the event in which Talorgan son of Fergus, (brother of Óengus I of the Picts) was slain. You wouldn't happen to know the name of the battle or any details about this event would you? I'm looking at expanding the Strathblane article and found a breif note about this battle in a book. --Jza84 | Talk 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Super stuff! Yes the book mentions a, or rather the "Welsh Chronicle" (which is a deadlink here on Wikipedia - one I'll probably fix with a redirect to Annales Cambriae in a moment). This all seems to match up nicely. Thanks! You seem to be an encyclopedia in your own right when it comes to Medieval Scotland! --Jza84 | Talk 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Pl revert your edit-warring
Please revert your move of the Great Britain and Ireland article. It is clear that the discussion had not been closed. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My Recent Rfa
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: from my talk
I'm not entirely sure I plan to, but I won't discount it. I'm familiar with the reasons to block and as I've said, I might possibly go there from time to time and help out if it has become so backlogged that I am needed there. Thank you for popping over on my talk though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from blocking, protecting, dispute resolution (not to mention the specific 3RR policy), what else would you suggest I have to know before entering into WP:AN3? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then its a good thing I never asked you to believe it. I only said block, because its what I believe is the most likely outcome to filing a 3rr report (given its not a frivolous report), and protect per a WP:RPP request, and delete per a CSD request, etc. I didn't mention my familiarity with the other policies, because I had assumed you had read my entire RfA. But anyhow, thank you for your comments, I will indeed reflect upon them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The Finns are back
My esteemed collegue at wikipedia in Norwegian Finn Bjorklid (here appearing as FinnWiki has translated Abbot of Iona to Norwegian bokmål. Reading over the translated and English version I was puzzled by "During that abbacies of Diarmait and Indrechtach, almost certainly because of Viking attacks, the relics of Columba and perhaps even the position of Columban comarba, were moved to Kells and Dunkeld" According to AU the relics came to Ireland in 878 (AU 878.9), quite a while after Indretach. This is also quoted by O Corrain (Vikings in S&I). Are there contradicting sources here, or may the relics first have gone to Dunkeld before coming to Ireland (Kells).
You wrote your parts of the article (which seem to be more or less all of it) i 2006, so I don't expect you to remember - but if there are other sources it would be good to know as I rewrote the Norw. version in accordance with AU. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Irish Finn (Rindahl) has made me aware that you are in fact my old colleague from Scottish history. I am sorry I didn't understand it first. Anyway, do you know if we (wiki-folks) have a picture of the beautiful Pictish stone, Brough of Birsay? The stone is rather remarkeable and it would be a pity if we can't use it as a illustration. --FinnWiki (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not the Irish Finn really, he's more Cool than me;) Deacon, you're not the first to be confused by two Norwegian Finns editing articles about the history of the northwestern part of those islands surrounding Man. Your (and Angus) answers at both Finntalks are appreciated. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
for your vote of confidence on my RFA! Quoting Dr. Phil is not a habit of mine and I will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future, I promise ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Karkonosze to Giant Mountains
Why do have closed both move proposals on Talk:Karkonosze as no consensus, not only the one to "Karkonosze/Krkonoše"? Did you only count support/oppose votes? Please read Talk:Karkonosze#Requested_move_to_Giant_Mountains again and see that Giant Mountains is well supported by sources, while the current name Karkonosze is the worst choice, less significant than Krkonoše, and of course the English name. Those opposing the move can can only cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I strongly urge you to reconsider as Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Where is evidence (and consensus) for the current name? The article has been created under that name, and while always a bunch of users showed up to filibuster a move request, they could not provide evidence for preferred use by scholars. As stated, the scientific journal Opera Corcontica is focussing on this very mountain range, and its international authors, mainly Czech and Polish, clearly favor the use of Giant Mountains [1], examples
- Clear identification of the Giant Mountains (Krkonoše in Czech, Karkonosze in Polish) among Central European elevations ...
- Surfaces of tourist routes in the Giant Mountains (Karkonosze in Polish)
How can this be "no consensus"? Please move the article to Giant Mountains. -- Matthead Discuß 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I second Matthead's request; none of the oppose !votes presented sources contradicting the proposed moves, simply their personal opinions, which aren't valid arguments. Please re-review the move proposal and associated discussion. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deacon of Pndapetzim, you confirmed on my talk that you had read the discussion and saw my arguments. Hopefully you saw the arguments of others, too. I urge you to explain your decision, or, if you choose not to do so, to revert your closure and let others decide. Until now, you gave no reason at all except stating "no consensus". There are 10 supporters for the move, with good reasons, while 9 oppose, in highly doubtful manner. -- Matthead Discuß 04:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- From User talk:Daniel. 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Daniel, I tried to remove the superfluous commentary added to the logs of this page, but certain users didn't like it. I've seen this a few times ... the comments invite further comments, inviting a whole discussion in the log, which it isn't supposed to be about. The block was reasonable and lenient, that Betacommand didn't like it is hardly noteworthy (his complaints in any case concern some editors he was reverting, though I blocked him for personal attacks, one of which was directed against an editor entirely uninvolved in that particular revert war). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully this will solve the problem of making all the facts available without presenting interpretations of fact. I agree that the section is not designed to be used a forum to note the blockee's continued objection to the block, and thanks for raising it on my talk page so I could resolve it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nikola Žigić
Please explain why you moved Nikola Zigic to Nikola Žigić because AFAICT it is clearly against both policy and guidelines (see WP:SOURCES, WP:NC and WP:UE). If it is not, I would appreciate it if you would explain which guidelines you think justify the move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur in finding this deplorable; the arguments for the move were largely WP:WELIKEIT and the (largely meaningless) "It's correct in Serbian". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You wrote on User talk:Pmanderson "I think you both know the vast majority of admins would have closed it as I did, but thanks for your concern nonetheless." No I don't, and I would have closed it the other way, because I would follow the current naming convention guidelines (not talk pages or essays) which are based on the policy WP:V and it states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (in this case the other two content polices are only very marginally involved). Therefore if the references or the vast majority of other reliable sources were using "Nikola Žigić" then that is were the name should be, but in this case they were the other way round so the name should have remained at Nikola Zigic. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Back in the USSR
Please reconsider. I agree that this is a case which may well fall outside the existing guidelines - indeed I raised it on WT:UE; but (aside from Prohibit Onions' ultimately neutral comment) there was consensus to move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- In case you are having trouble finding this, it is Talk:Снова в СССР, which should at least be moved out of its present condition of mistaken Cyrillic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sock concern
Regarding this concern. I am aware of the owner of the account that concerns you and believe it to be policy compliant. If you have further concerns, feel free to email me and I will elaborate. Rockpocket 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help clearing out the backlog at WP:RM recently. For a time there, we were down to merely two items in the backlog, which is by far a low point for 2008. Hope to see you around again if things get out of hand. JPG-GR (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted the first tree on this page (up to the end of the Dunkeld Dynasty); I have put it back, but with an additional disclaimer. I agree that the early part of the tree is unreliable, and that elements of it are patently inaccurate (for example, Edmund son of Malcolm III is not generally regarded as a monarch, and regnal dates are given for him which overlap with those of Donalbain), but I thought that as it is in the main accurate, it is still a useful tool. I think that it would be far better to correct the thing than to simply discard it. Much more irritating than the errors (I have had to work it out from other pages) is that the family trees don't explain the ancestry of the Bruces or the Balliols (i.e. their descent from David I). I don't know who formats the wiki family trees, but as your user page appears to suggest that you are some sort of wiki-deity in relation to Scottish history (I in comparison am a relative novice), your input would be much appreciated. BartBassist (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
260 in Ireland
I quite agree that primary sources for remote periods, particularly when of uncertain reliability, need to be treated with care. However the sources do verifiably exist. Material from such sources should certainly not be treated as plain fact, but neitgher should it be dismissed out of hand. It should be able to be inclded in WP, with a suitable explanation of its credibility. Single year articles are certainly the wrong approach, but 3rd century in Ireland covering all (alleged events) reamins a possibility. I am not offering to deal with this as I manage Latin but not Celtic languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I note that 3rd century in Ireland has now been deleted. I suspect that this was not the best solution, since some one will one day recreate it all and we will have the same problem again. However, since it has gone, that is to my mind the end of the matter for the moment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis
Hello Deacon, I have come to you because you are an admin. Matt Lewis has constantly been aggressive to me over the last few days and I believe it has come to a head. It started on the British Isles page where he said I was using pro-nationalist POV and ended with him telling me to f**k off on his talk page. On the whole I have tried to remain civil with him apart from telling him to grow up. Could you please take a look at it, Thank you. Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Deacon, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my RFA. having been watching RFA for some time now, I see that you are careful and diligent !voter thus I am humbled to have your support. you may be interested in checking out and commenting on my in-depth RFA analysis. i've also left some templated thank-spam for you below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Bloomfield
Hi there, remember you asked me once about Black Ruthenia and biases behind it? Well, this AfD might give some more insight. Best, Renata (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777
Thanks for the support, it's appreciated. :) Alison and I have been having long talks about the situation, and I am hoping that we will find a compromise soon. We're almost there, but are taking a break due to real-life issues and will resume later. Could I make one request of you in the meantime? In your most recent comment, would you be willing to rework it to avoid the T-word? I am concerned that in the tense atmosphere of that page, it might escalate things more than necessary. Up to you though! Thanks, Elonka 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As far as I can tell, you placed the “unpublished synthesis” template on the article solely due to the title. Would you consider replacing it with Template:Disputed title? I think that would identify the issue more clearly. If I've misunderstood, please explain on the article's talk page. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-06-12 03:49 z
- I took the liberty of changing the template. You're welcome to revert if I was mistaken. —Michael Z. 2008-06-12 04:59 z
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Pndapetzim !!!
|
The 25 DYK Medal | |
| Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, Deacon (I like the literary ref in the name)! -- Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Origins of the Harp in Europe
Hi Deacon I just wondered if I could ask some advice about the Origin of the harp in Europe page. As you are a well respected editor and like myself have had dealings with the harp page and trolls I would like to ask you some advice in the matter of my work in the Origins of the Harp in Europe page. A speedy deletion tag request by an unsigned editor 93.107.128.92 for the origins of the European Harp in Europe page. I have researched this article well and have cited academic references throughout and despite 38 references in the Irish section alone, the unsigned editor has placed a dubious tag and has requested the whole page be deleted for pov violation.
I feel that this view is unjust and I have merely cited the views of academia and all of my sources are backed up by recent Irish centric and the current standard view of research and empirical publications. Most of these sources range from 2000 – 2005 and the lyre prodonminates in Irish carvings rather than a triangular harp within an Irish context is nothing new as cited by one of the great celtic harp historians Roslyn Rensch (1989) and has been even commented Edward Bunting (2000) originally published in 1843. I feel this editor cannot find a valid source to back up his accusations of pov and wishes to remove the page which is backed up by refrences. Also studies from Edward Bunting 1843, JASTOR Grey University of Michigan 1956, Kenneth Mathieson 2001 and Daibhi OCoinin in a New History of Ireland, prehistoric and early history (2005) conclude the triangular harp was not evident in Ireland till the Anglo-Norman invasion.
How can I get the article peer reviewed and the dubious tag off the page, as far as I have seen the majority of studies cite the lyre and not the triangular harp as the Irish instrument of choice before the anglo-norman invasion? I have even had random acts of vandalism on the page [[2]] where another unsigned editor 78.19.156.62 changing researched sources to a gaelic pov totally taking the cited sourse out of context. Can you help as I feel that I have put a lot of hard work into this page, wishing to improve wikipedia as a credible cited sourse on the internet? CheersCeltic Harper (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Origin of the harp in Europe is a total POV page. CHarper has apparently only referenced Scottish books on the subject, and maybe some Irish. Is it "finding the citations to suit the article"? I hope not. Did C-harper read any international sources, like German, French, Spanish, North Africa, Italian. Wikipedia is not all about Britain and Scotland? Even Scottish scholars would pass doubt on the page. Your whole theory is, "a couple of stones, with carvings of harps, "without" fore-pillars", and that's all the physical or descriptive evidence there is. It looks very much like WP:OR. 93.107.131.213 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree with user WP:OR and have cited sources from a variety of sources including the noted harp historian Roslyn Rench as well as others. As Deacon is aware due to edit warring with past sockpuppets most harp historians regard pictorial evidence for the harp as paramount and disregard written sources as there is no indication of the instruments used as there is a confusion between harps, harpa, cruit and lyres first discussed by (Rench in 1969). Regarding articles from foreign language sources, well I can't speak German, French, Spanish or Italian. The only source at present user 93.107.131.213 has cited was the Inverntion of Tradition by Hugh Trevor-Roaper. Who is bias and anti-Scottish in nature suggesting everything cultural came from the Gaels of Ireland. This was a common tactic of user Bluegold who also quoted Roper, I hope they are not the same person. If there is a wealth of sources out there I suggest user 93.107.131.213 researches it. RegardsCeltic Harper (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Andreas de Moravia (disambiguation)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andreas de Moravia (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tassedethe (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
mistake in article on Benedict XII
The article claims that Benedict XII, in opposition to the theological opinions of John XXII, campaigned against the Immaculate Conception. I have no idea if B12 carried out such a campaign. Before reviewing the wiki article, I had never seen such a claim.
- There is lots of historical evidence that J22 was opposed to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. So there's at least one mistake in the article. B12 could not have opposed J12's rejection of the Immaculate Conception if he also campaigned against that doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frjoe (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back Deacon. I wonder if you could restore the section vandalized by anon 69.47.186.13 on June 5, 2008. That anon's vandalism was incorrectly fixed by anon 74.219.149.67, who failed to restore the vandalized section; merely deleting it. The mistake hasn't been rectified since. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how, without reverting all the other edits inbetween. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken your advice. I've reverted the article back to May 2008. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- 'Tis alright. That article is rarely visited (except fo vandals), my mass reverting will probably go unnoticed. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
Great to see you back!... it's been... emotional, without you! Hope you had a great holiday. --Jza84 | Talk 10:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Block of User:Pietervhuis
Hi, I reported this user on 3RR and now I've noticed you blocked him for 1 week, but shouldn't his block be for longer considering he *just* came off a *10 day* block for breaking the 3RR for the fifh time?--Miyokan (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Ok I see that you were informed of the report when you blocked him, regards anyway.--Miyokan (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
POV FORK
I don't see how a simple list as a navigation aid is a POV fork. I haven't duplicated the information or the format, as you can see List of Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales is much different from the List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain. All the other nations have a list of dioceses in country x, which means that the UK gets one too. Otherwise, that is POV to treat the UK differently then elsewhere. I am willing to change the list over to the UK list, but that means the northern ireland ones go back in this list, which I suggested be done 6 months ago.
Oh, and one other question, I notice you removed my earlier comments as a 'nuisance'. Isn't transparency important for administrators on wikipedia so that the rank and file can see that their comments have been acknowledged rather then merely swept under the rug and ignored? Do you always remove comments that you find objectionable?
Ball's in your court. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Request for admin assistance with Roman Catholic diocese articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
O'Neill images
Did you upload this image? If so could you please say when and where you sourced it. The National Maritime Museum in Dun Laoghaire, Dublin is in receipt of requests for a better quality image. There is no "Dartmouth Map Number 25" in our catalogue ClemMcGann (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Guy of/de Lusignan
Well, are we really going to say that Guy's surname was "de Lusignan" when after all he was actually from Lusignan? I admit that the books I happen to have in front of me are also split on the name, although I think "de Lusignan", when it is used, it because the author tends to use French spellings rather than because it is supposedly a surname.
For "of Lusignan":
- Christopher Tyerman, God's War
- Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives
- Runciman's three-volume history
- Peter Edbury's edition of John of Ibelin (though this refers to the Guy who died in 1300 when it was more surely a surname)
- Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade
- Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem
- Alan Forey, The Military Orders
- Dana Munro, The Kingdom of the Crusaders
- Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood
- Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions
- Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King
- Marwan Nader, Burgesses and Burgess Law
- P.M. Holt, the Age of the Crusades
- Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades
- Hans Meyer, The Crusades
- Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem
- Zvi Razi and Eliot Braun, "The Lost Crusader Castle of Tiberias" in The Horns of Hattin, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar (Kedar's article "The Battle of Hattin Revisited" in the same collection simply calls him "King Guy")
- R.C. Smail's article, "The Predicaments of Guy of Lusignan"
For "de Lusignan":
- Smail, Crusading Warfare
- Joshua Prawer, The Crusaders' Kingdom
- Lyons and Jackson, Saladin
- Helen Nicholson, The Chronicle of the Third Crusade (also uses Aimery de Lusignan for his brother)
- Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades
- Ronnie Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement
I have a load of other articles I could check too, but, while I don't have the sum total of scholarship in front of me, I think the scholarly consensus obviously leans towards "of". There is a similar problem with the Ibelins, where "d'Ibelin" is sometimes used even for the ones who ruled Ibelin before the name became hereditary. In this case I think we should stick with "of". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I know, I just find Google Books frustratingly incomplete sometimes. I don't know why English nobles keep their French "de"s; I suppose it comes down to different historiographical traditions. As for wikipolicy, would "of Lusignan" be better if he had actually ruled Lusignan? All the Hughs would keep their "of"s? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Kiev Expedition
Please see Talk:Boleslaw_I's_intervention_in_the_Kievan_succession_crisis,_1018#Please_explain_major_rewrite_in_detail. I hope you can incorporate all your hard work into existing article without removing big chunks of my past hard work :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Scotland
If you have any sources about Samuel Johnson's relationship with Scotland, could you quote the sections and put them on the talk page with the biographical data? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything in particular that you would like to see? I can generalize for a few lines about his reception in Scotland, but I would like to hear your emphasis first. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I added your language, but had to change some things at the beginning to connect it as being a part of the work, instead of just generalized comments made by Johnson. Also, could you explain what parts eulogize Johnson? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your RFArb statement
Hello Deacon. Please could you refactor your statement on the main RfArb page? Statements should be 500 words or less, and yours is currently 1170. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Scottish Demographics, Middle Ages
That's fine, I will examine Barrow's book and verify it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Evil Empire (II)
I wonder if, at your leisure and when you have finished showing off on the main page and have some time off from the Eastern Front, you might care for a collaboration? I refer off course to the subject of our previous discussion. As you hinted it is a possible FA candidate but I confess to a lamentable lack of knowledge about the activities of the legions furth of Caledonia and not a great deal more about the Criuthne. I'd be reluctant to embark on such a venture without a little expert assistance. Incidentally, you are right that the name does not work as "during" implies "throughout", which it does not cover. I'm not sure of the best solution ( I believe "during The Iron Age" is too broad as it includes neither the beginning of this nor the end) but perhaps "Scotland and the RE" might work. What do you think? No hurry. Ben MacDui 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Scotland in the Roman Iron Age? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm ... gives a bit of a pre-Viking Scandinavian feel to it! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I nabbed it from Harding's Iron Age in Northern Britain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now there's an even better title! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:"Own"
I have addressed your issues, and I have restored well-referenced content. My version, which does not remove any of your content (other than few errors, such as the "Duchy of the Poles"), merges all the available info, per suggestions by neutral editors (User:Catalan, User:Cla68). You are more than welcome to expand the text and point out (for example) a specific work that disputes Jaworski claim that Sv. was the eldest son. In such cases, we may also attribute a given theory to Jaworski (I've done so already, for example with regards to his estimate of the size of the Polish forces. Yes, it's an estimate by a historian, who admits its not based on a primary source but on the works of Polish historians speculating about the Polish contingent in 1018; still it is a reliable historical claim). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Pehthelm
Hello Deacon, thanks for the quick attention to the article. No real problems with part of the description of Northumbrian territory, but Northumbria did rule everything south of the Firth of Clyde for some time, so saying so would be more accurate; I used the term "Columbite" because that is what the sources used; "Columban" is fine; however the "fact" challenge looks off - I avoided any allegation of intent, and replacing Iona-oriented clerics with York-oriented clerics did, in fact, facilitate Northumbrian hegemony (whether or not that was the original intent). Did I change your first impression here? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediaevalists
Is there a functioning Medieval WikiProject?
WP:MOSNUM is close to requiring (see here) that, in order to make autoformatting of dates easier, we must identify all non-Gregorian dates as such. I've tried to explain what this would mean to our historical articles, but we could use more input from people who write them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism
Can be such edits [3] [4] [5] reported as vandalism: type – sneaky ? User warned 2 times – [6] and [7] but accured editing talk page from my warning or twisting it [8]
Such bad faith tactic was initially applied by user:Faustian [9] [10] [11] [12] –
Tactics described as follow: - while fixing grammar and typo also removed or distorted information – assumed as undesired – as far as it labeled as “Russian (communist etc) Propaganda, POV's etc”
Removal of "undesired" info [13] [14] Thank you for advice in further actions Jo0doe (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
See this stuff [15]
Jo0doe (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Dear Editor - you engaged in sneaky spelling correction [3] [4] [5] - I aplogise for my stupidity however please limit your edits on fixing my grimmar only. Assume this as a second warning, otherwise I will resort to further buffudlement Jo0doe (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So Please advice a solution how to handle this stile of edits. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:S-ecc
Template:S-ecc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediaeval Scotland
Hi Deacon, thanks for the welcome, I've enjoyed your article on the High Middle ages in Scotland.
My interests include the Mediaeval period, but are more local, particularly centred on Angus and (especially) the area around Carnoustie. I've been working on improving the quality of that article for a few months (when real life doesn't get in the way) and nominated it for GA review to try to get some constructive criticism of it (I'm maybe a little too close to the subject matter to spot the holes). I've been re-writing the early history section, but concentrating on the pre-mediaeval period. I'd be particularly interested if you have any records of this area (spelling variations include Karnousty and Carnussie) and also Barry/Barrie parish and Panbride parish from the early Mediaeval period to the late 18th century.
Cheers Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- If it interests you, I'm going to photograph a couple of Mottes tomorrow morning, and maybe a Class III Pictish Stone. I want to incorporate some detail about the Norman influence on the area into my article on Carnoustie, but think maybe someone with more expertise in these matters might do it more justice... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Philip de Valognes is mentioned in The Ha'ens o' Panbride, which mentions that they also spelt their name 'Valloniis'. Boece also lived there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Stuck in a rut?
|
The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation | |
| Thanks for your assistance in helping Fauna of Scotland to become a Featured Article.
It's much appreciated by Cervus elaphus and myself, Ben MacDui 18:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
Move survey results
Thank you for resolving that issue per consensus on Seattle! Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 15:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Merging Russian projects into one project - your input requested
Hi, you are receiving this message as you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian history. I have made a proposal to merge several Russian related projects into WP:RUSSIA. You can view the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russian_history#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project. As a member of the Russian history project, your input is requested; so that all editors are reading off the same page please limit discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. We all look forward to your input. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA stuff
Hi. You may or may not have seen the kerfuffle I've stirred up at WT:RFA. Essentially, our supply of admins has dried up in recent months and I'm looking to reverse the trend.
I'm considering nominating User:Enigmaman. I see from his failed RfA that you were a key individual in a dispute that ultimately led to a substantial tranche of opposition to this user. Quite a lot of water has flowed under bridges since April, so I'd like to ask you the following:
Please will you review the user's contribs since April (or more recent if you prefer) and decide if you think he is trustworthy with the tools. If you agree that he is trustworthy, please will you co-nom with me, which will speak volumes, I believe.
If you do not believe him to be trustworthy, some diffs at my talk or here would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've kept my eye on him. He is competent at handling complex information and the boring stuff that would make him a productive admin. I think he will probably use the tools well, and I would just assume that failing the last RfA would have brought the most important lessons about community opinion home to him. I would like to know if he still thinks the old incident was vandalism though, or at least if he would continue to call such things "vandalism" on public platforms. The last thing we need are new admins who sound like tendentious editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- John celona's edits? They were not vandalism, as I now realize, but they were unproductive. My problem was not enough knowledge of the history. I didn't know about Tommypowell and where the edits were coming from. I will endeavour to be more careful about such matters in the future. Regards, Enigma message 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
you've got mail---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL... my mail was asking what Dweller asked above... would you be interested in co-noming Enigma.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Error - deletion required!
Hi Deacon, long time no speak. I created this page WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Bibliography by mistake. I was copying it to my own mediawiki server, or at least I thought I was, and instead created a duplicate of the wikiproject subpage. Could you delete it for me, please. Hope you are fine. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 10:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ta very much, much appreciated. I'm ok but generally scunnered with wiki so doin' stuff offline and just come on when I feel like it. Thanks also for the pointer to the saints database. Seems like a good resource. Looked up Gilbert of Dornoch - nice little bio. Cheers, Bill Reid | Talk 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for Rollback
Hello, Deacon! I was wondering if you could help me. An IP editor changed a lot of the links in the List of law enforcement agencies in Maryland and I was going to start undoing them (there was a lot of individual edits) but it would have taken me forever. I think that with rollback priveleges I could do it quicker. Could you help me with that? Thanks! --Sallicio 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done already. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Learn how to use Wikipedia
You don't delete well-cited material simply because you believe in your own imagination. Do it again and I'll be seeing you in arbitration. Adraeus (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't help it, man. Whenever I see well-cited material I got this inexplicable desire just to remove it for the sake of it. I think it may be a form of vandalitis, though I admit believing in my own imagination has a role too. I need to get to more VA meetings. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration
A request for arbitration has been filed. Adraeus (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your oppose vote in my RFA. I will try to work on what has been mentioned in the opposes and anything else that is brought to my attention on my talk page.
|
DYK for Lucy of Bolingbroke
|
On 13 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucy of Bolingbroke, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
DYK for Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester
|
|
On 14 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Why was the decision not move. I'm not sure if you are aware of the entire situation, but the orginal name of the article was History of the Assyrian people (the title we were trying to move it back to.) If you look at the first debate, it was obvious what User dab did was wrong by moving the page without discussion, thus the Wiki community moved the page back to History of the Assyrian people. Within hours, user dab moved the page again to its current title name. Its obvious that their was no decision, thus the least that should have been done is to move the page back to its original name. Also, please take a look at my last comments regarding the issue. The current title is misleading, as Syriacs is mostly a reference to Syriac-speaking Churches (see Syriac Christianity). That is not what that page is about. Its about the history of an ethnic group, much like History of Armenians. Iraqi (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. I'd also be interested to hear what the "other concerns" you mentioned in your oppose !vote were. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Piotrus arbcom
Thank you very much for your kind words! Kirill (prof) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Check User Request
Yo could you check out the ip of user:DentalHygenist ... I was being vandalized on another project by him... I bet if his IP is from Pakistan he is Saquib the damn vandalizer at wikinews. Thanks yo. Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright thanks mate. Not knowing the IP sucks. -- Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you move the page? There was an ongoing discussion at that talk page but you moved the page and closed the debate. Can I at least reopen the debate? My proposal to move the page to Soviet-Japanese War got support from 1 of the 3 editors involved. EconomistBR 15:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I really glad you are cleaning up the RM backlog, some are months old. But this RM debate didn't reach consensus. If you read the discussion you will see that the RM was controversial. Could I at least reopen the discussion? EconomistBR 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I will open a new debate. Still this RM request was unsound, they are trying to pass the formal Soviet-Japanese war, on which 1.5 million soviet soldiers were mobilized as a mere skirmish. EconomistBR 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
|
|
Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.
I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe |
History of the Assyrian People
Hello I am in need of some assistance rght now in regards to the History of the Assyrian People. Dab has changed this name without any discussion or consensus until after the fact he did it. This page prior to being masively changed by this user was strictly dedicated to perserving and explaining the history of this persecuted people from ancient times to the present. Syriac is a misleading term that can refer to anyone who speaks the languge where as Assryain is a specifc ethnicity that has existed since ancient times. I am in the same ball field as USer: Chaldean in that this should be moved back to the way it was before it got drastically changed. He has done this before with Achaeminad Assyria and he as been rebuked by the Wiki community and he is doing this again .He is continually disrupting articles from Wiki Project Assyria to fit his narrow minded views. Can you help revert this article back to the name it was before it got changed to this new name which is problematic on the grounds that not all assryians speak syriac and there are over 2.5 million syriac speakers in india who are not assyrian. This title is very misleading; there is already an articel on Syraic Christianity and there is no need to reiterate this information on every Assyrian related Article. Please get back to me and also Dab although helpful at times is continuing to disrupt pages from this project to meet his so called fair and balanced views. I have left similar messages fro some other users as well we can use some additional help thanks your participation in this will be appreciated. Nineveh 209 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
MIA?
Hiya Deacon. Whatever happened to the fellow, who used to argue with ya over the Scottish monarch names ('bout over a year ago)? I can't even remember the editor's name. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That's weird. A few days later, a similiar discussion breaks out at David I of Scotland, yikes. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA on Slim Virgin's unblocking of Giano II
Hiya again. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment there (as I'm not an Administrator). Anyways (and forgive my naivety), why is it always a 'circus or high drama' when Giano is blocked? or unblocked? Why can't administrators agree on this editor-in-question. Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just to note, I've no problems with Ginao (personally). But IMHO, he's breached Wikipedia:Civil, on a few occasions. Other editors might cry, 'Why can he get away with it??'. Oh well, we'll see how it turns out. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Political
You said on the RfAR page that the conflict is a political struggle. Is there any good page that describes the wiki-political positions of Giano et al? I am trying to understand this conflict. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Didn't want it to be too easy
You just had to add questions to my latest potential nominee, you didn't want it to be too easy now did you ;-) Are you trying to scare him off before he accepts the nom ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible edit war
A user you recently blocked for edit warring (someone I was given a short block along with) seems to be starting it again here. I just wanted to advise an admin instead of wading in myself :) Alastairward (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Funny he'd mention this, considering the fact the edit war had equal input from both of us. On a slightly different note, while I have to follow WP:PROVEIT, doesn't the editor who challenges my additions bear the "burden of proof" as well? I mean, can anyone just challenge anything without having to show their reason is valid enough? Doesn't seem to make much sense. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- What burden do you think I should bear exactly? The war that you pulled back from involved three editors that disagreed with you BTW. Alastairward (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
The RfA Barnstar | |
| Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Scots Kings infobox
STOP, CEASE AND DESIST! You do NOT just go unilaterally reverting with a simple "rv; monarch infobox is better"! For crying out loud, discuss, man! I would suggest WP:ROY. I shall revert your reversions and await your input there. Good day DBD 11:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Jclemens RfA
|
JClemens' RfA Thanks | |
| Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
The Ireland moves
Yep, there's no consensus for it. Therefore, I'm celebrating now 'cause a major Wiki storm is approaching. The administrator-in-question, could possibly end up having his Adm duties suspended. Indeed, his page moves, were gutsy. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The storm (i.e. anti-movers) will be peeved (to say the least), at Ireland (state) article. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks goodness. No doubt, we'll be heading to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Deacon. It looks like you've got into a bit of a silly edit war with Piotrus on the above page. Can I suggest you take a step back from it? It's really a very minor formatting change and it's in your best interests that it doesn't escalate further. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ryan, but I know about this already. See my message at the bottom of the page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can you then restore my section headings? Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Those section headings were added by you only after I posted, presumably because you didn't like my response and wished to de-emphasize it (really, I seriously doubt such things are important here!). Given that you are not exactly the most unbiased editor, I think it is best if you leave such things to the clerks rather than edit-war when other users don't like you reformatting around their text. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Guys - this is a silly thing to get into a dispute over. Really, does it matter? Deacon - Piotrus clearly feels strongly about having them, so would you be happy for him to readd them? I believe that's the best way for us to move forward. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where is this emanating from? No I wouldn't be happy for him to do this. While I agree it is silly that this is happening, I don't agree it's silly to oppose attempts to exploit the format of text for someone's advantage nor am I convinced I am being petty (as it appears Ryan is trying to make out) by caring. Surely it would only be fair if all headers on that talk pages had sub-headers separating individual user comments and arbitrator comments then? No? You're just giving a green light for anyone in future to go edit [and edit-war for] the format of every talk page as it most suits themselves knowing full well that anyone who opposes this will be singled out and accused of pettiness because the editorializing party "feels strongly". No no. Do what you like, Ryan, but you ain't getting my approval. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Deacon. An out-of-context statements like: "Bigger amount of posts, wouldn't make your claims look more credible, actually" is a personal attack, obviously. Its only purpose is to ridicule Piotrus as the one thinking that "bigger amount of post would make his claims (what claims?) more credible". This is obvious baiting, too. If you need to discuss this with Tymek, why not use his talk page instead of starting an off topic thread in the RfA's talk page ? Cheers. --Lysytalk 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)