User talk:Medeis

This talk page belongs to μηδείς. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Help:Archiving a talk page

Help:Archiving a talk page

DYK for Dzungarian Gate

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Geography of New Caledonia

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shetani

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK issue

Hello! Your submission of Geography of New Caledonia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Crum375 (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Third Man

My objection to the "overwhelmingly positive" remark in The Third Man article is the word "overwhelmingly," which is hyperbolic and therefore unencyclopedic. It is also untrue. The fact is that the critical response was not overwhelmingly positive — critics objected to the score and to the Dutch angle cinematography, among other things. So "mostly positive" is about as far as you might go. You might also check out the past edits of the IP editor who inserted the word "overwhelmingly" — his/her edits are strictly hyperbolae, one after another, always summarizing film reviews in extreme terms. You should do more homework before accusing me of misreading a quote. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

For a reply please see User talk:Peter Horn#Alataw Pass. Peter Horn User talk 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

About Roman church

Medeis, for what it is worth I have been gratified that it seems we are starting to find some common ground in the discussion. I hope you are feeling the same. It seems, though, that new disagreements are going to keep opening up for a while as new editors take an interest. Since it seems like the discussion on that talk page is going in multiple directions please feel free to debate any of this on my talk page if you think it would be more productive.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman imperial church. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your summing things up on the Afd. I think you stated it very well. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are watching here. The frustrating thing is that the objectors seem to be unable to grasp the idea that the article is about the state church, and seem to be focused on the notion that "the Church" as they define it in their head (Catholic or Orthodox or mere Christian), is not just the church that was established by Thessalonica and definitively ended by the mutual anathema of 1054. In effect they are denying that the edict and the anathema had any actual reality or meaning. They cannot grasp the validity of stipulation in definition, and hence will not accept that you can possibly be talking about what you say you are talking about. In the end it amounts to a failure to be able to differentiate your mind from that of others and to accept that a person can have an idea that you do not have yourself.μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The reality is that virtually all distinctions one may make between groups of people are all opinions, even if they are widely held opinions. "Official" depends entirely on who you ask. With religion, of course, it becomes especially contentious because you are messing with the core things that people base their idea of reality around. There will be no consensus wrt the Afd discussion simply because some editors simply won't be able to let go of their need to see things a certain way regardless of how many historians more qualified than them disagree. Oh well.

BTW, if you want to take a shot at expanding the article to add some of the areas that I have not yet addressed, please feel free. I hope nothing I have said before implied that you couldn't.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am too busy with other articles. I have a DYK nomination for Dzungarian Gate (see below) and am trying to prevent busybodies at Chinese Room from rewriting the article to conform to their own personal notions of how John Searle should have framed his argument. I see nothing that needs a major correction or to be deleted from the current article. The article name and this vindictive AfD witchhunt - you are obviously a cryptoprotestant - is a huge distraction that takes up too much of our time from actually expanding articles. Don't worry about giving me permission to do as I see fit - I am sure you can see bold is my middle name. :D

:-) I didn't know I was hiding anything. I am a Presbyterian, son of Baptist-turned-Methododist-turned-Catholic and a staunch Methodist. My brother is a Methodist minister and the other is an agnostic who claims to be Presbyterian when he comes into town since he visits our church (makes our mother happier). --Mcorazao (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit reflects the sources, but may be too controversial given the present climate. I support it and its validity but submit it for your review and possible reversion given the current climate.μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to think about that. I think this is going too far for the lead but there may be some for of it that is appropriate in the legacy. The whole lead at this point has to be reworked. I'm a bit weary at the moment from the million different tagents this article has spawned.

One thing I want to avoid is getting into a pattern in which, if there is something that the article suggests or implies that someone is bothered by, then we insert less relevant content to counterbalance. If that pattern continues to develop then the article starts to become a discussion page full of points and counterpoints that are less and less relevant to the topic (which is already starting to happen). Sometimes the hardest part of keeping an article on-topic is getting people to accepts that sometimes the topic of an article just irks you and that's ok.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that editors who already object that there is no such thing as the imperial church or who object that the topic should only cover from 380-476 are likely to object to the idea that the imperial church could be referred to in the context of the late Middle Ages. I would respond that an idea can outlast its referent and that if scholars comment on the influence of an idea then it is legitimate for us to mention what they say. Certain editors, so far as I can even understand them, seem to object to the article based in part on the idea that merely discussing the imperial church implies that we are therefor asserting with the authority of wikipedia that there METAPHYSICALLY IS some such entity as the IMPERIAL CHURCH apart from our using that term as a convenient way to describe whatever did happen to exist independently of our ideas from it. Like I said, I am bringing the edit up to you not because I think it is wrong, but because I can see that it would possibly have an impact on achieving consensus, and that's the basis upon which I might accept its present reversion.μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for making efforts to find common ground with all sides. But this kind of gets at what I mean when I talk about trying to stay on-topic. Certainly there is a validity to the idea that there was an ideal of the universal church that went beyond the empire. But that is a tangential, albeit related, topic. For the sake of argument let's say we agree on three things:

1. That there is no practical degree to which Italy remained part of the Roman Empire after 476.
2. That there is no practical degree to which the Church of Rome continued to be funded by, influenced by, controlled by the Roman Empire after 476.
3. That there is no practical degree to which the Church of Rome had any recognized control over any dioceses in the Roman Empire after 476.

In that case I would argue that to say that the Church of Rome was still part of the state church is fiction. That it was in communion with the state church is a separate matter. But trying to turn that communion into making it a de facto part of the Empire would be trying to fabricate reality.

The reality, of course, is that no serious scholar would agree with any of the three statements above (though they would say that there are some grains of truth to them). There was a process of separation taking place that began in the 5th century (arguably) and culminated in the 8th century (11th century if you are really reaching). Certainly trying to argue that Rome was in any meaningful way part of the Roman Empire in the 9th century is nuts. But similarly saying that Rome was formally separated from the Roman Empire in the 5th century is pushing a viewpoint that is not consistent with the facts. Legally, according to anybody alive at the time, Rome was part of the Roman Empire just like Constantinople (although the administrators of Rome were seen as barbarians because they were one of the Empire's underclasses).

I certainly agree with the editors who point out that there are a lot of subtleties to all of this (which is true of all history). And it is appropriate to some degree to bring up some of these subtleties in the article. But I don't want to start going down the path of appeasing different factions to the point that we dilute or confuse the topic.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you need my support in any disputes. I intend to revert bad edits. I have no intention of actively contributing to an article while "editors" who want the article deleted tag it in bad faith.μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment it seems everyone (myself included) is avoiding editing since the Afd was resolved. I was taking a bit of time to get some distance from the article and think about how to approach further enhancements. I am thinking that perhaps finding some authoritative sources to quote regarding the scope of the topic may be a good place to start. Toward the end of some of the recent threads a couple of editors indicated that if the article directly addressed the fuzziness inherent in the topic they would be happier. The only way I can think to address that directly in an NPOV way is to quote somebody (though finding appropriate quotes is easier said than done). --Mcorazao (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dzungarian Gate

Hello! Your submission of Dzungarian Gate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AngChenrui (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a major issue, just asking for a decision between the two hooks. I posted this notice because of its urgency - the nomination's running old and might get deleted in a day or two's time. Regards, AngChenrui (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ta4NGlead+q

wot=rong pl w/" It harbors the highest volcano of Indonesia with the Kerinci, standing at 3805 m and highest peak of the island.“[myrv'd edit fromSumatra-lead-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I do find the above comment confusing because according to both the article New Guinea (which I edit) and the article [[Puncak Jaya}}, Puncak Jaya, which is in the Indonesian half of New Guinea, is the higher mountain, at 4884m. Since I do not edit Indonesia or Sumatra and since New Guinea is correct I am unsure of what you would like me to do. As a policy I do not correspond with other editors outside of wikipedia itself.μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

y,butno volcano,no?[jaya-no geo:( -1rsn givn="bad engl:( [urfb=elp,ta!:)-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if the question is, is Puncak Jaya a volcano, then the answer is, not an active one. I would bet very good money that it is the eroded core of an extinct vocano, given its shape and appearance, like [Devils Tower National Monument|[Devil's Tower]] which is an extinct volcanic core. I could find no reference to volcanism and Puncak Jaya in a very cursory google search. But this WP:OR is my educated guess, my areas of expertise are biology and historical linguistics.μηδείς (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Puncak Jaya is the highest point on the central range, which was created in the 'Melanesian orogeny', caused by oblique collision between the Australian and Pacific plates. It's unlikely to be a volcano. In fact it's made of middle Miocene limestones.[1] Mikenorton (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saw that on your talk page. Shows how much my ignorant lay opinion OR is worth.μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The similarity in appearance comes from the jointing I think, sadly I could tell it was limestone just from that particular grey colour, but finding a ref to back that up was hard work. Mikenorton (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Just a tip: in AfD discussions, it's best for subheadings to be at the ==== or lower level: otherwise it seriously messes up parent lists like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 13 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity. I've fixed the problems in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I obviously did not know that and welcome your help.μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming faults

Hi Medeis, your move of Altyn Tagh Fault led me to look around - as you say I've created a set of article all using 'Fault'. In the case of the Awatere, Hope, Clarence and Wairau Faults, the majority of reliable sources use 'Fault'. I also note San Andreas Fault, Calaveras Fault, Chaman Fault, Alpine Fault, Great Glen Fault, Highland Boundary Fault, Southern Uplands Fault, North Anatolian Fault, East Anatolian Fault, Liquiñe-Ofqui Fault, Denali Fault, Queen Charlotte Fault and many others. I'm not disagreeing with the particular instance, just pointing out that naming on Wikipedia is not always consistent. Mikenorton (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the consistent part. Capitalization is a matter of convention, entities like the San Andreas fault (the fault of San Andreas) become the San Andreas Fault (the Fault named San Andreas) once they become newsworthy. Technically, fault is not capitalized so unless the scholarly or conventional usage is to capitalize. The natural English tendency is to capitalize any noun that is likely to become the title of a piece of writing. We are taught as children to capitalize the names of rivers, but not the names of coasts. (I think that has to do with the fact that our pagan Indo-European ancestors revered rivers and mountains.) A strict adherence to the rule would make me insist that we consider uncapitalizing most of the instances of fault in those titles, but I am not about to go there. If this instance weighs on you (as a typesetter, I don't care for the aesthetic effects of the wikipedia convention, so I can imagine how it might) then I would have no problem letting the every rule has an exception rule apply here. More to a point, have you thought of a less technical hook? Your first proposal was a doozie.μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a proposed ALT1 hook that I am happy with after a bit of minor tweaking - ... that the 5830 metre high mountain of Altun Shan (pictured) was formed at a bend in the Altyn Tagh fault?. Also I'm generally against making hooks on technical articles entirely non-technical, if it means that viewers have to click on links to understand then I don't personally see a problem with that. The alternative is to have very few technical articles at DYK - some would be happy with that, but there are plenty of other who think it would be a bad idea - it would certainly make me think twice about contributing. This hook - ... that plate reconstructions (example pictured) that use magnetic stripe patterns can only go back to the Jurassic period, as there is no older oceanic crust? - got 9,500 page views (as lead hook) despite its technical nature. Anyway this is a subject that tends to divide DYK regulars, so I'll stop ranting. Mikenorton (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember that hook on sea-floor crust! I clicked on it myself. I did see the ALT1 hook above, although when I clicked on the source given in the article for the height of the peak the server would not respond. I'll agf.μηδείς (talk)

I can't get it to respond either today, it was a very useful resource - here's another ref. to confirm it [2]. Mikenorton (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominal Accuracy Dzungarian Gate

While I appreciate your sentiments on original wording, referring to the text: The windswept valley of the Dzungarian Gate, 6 mi (9.7 km) wide at its narrowest, is located between Lake Alakol to the northwest in Kazakhstan and Ebinur Lake (Chinese: 艾比湖; pinyin: Àibǐ Hú) to the southeast in China.[13] At its lowest, the floor of the valley lies at about 1,500 ft (457 m) elevation, while the surrounding peaks of the Dzungarian Alatau range reach about 10,000 ft (3,048 m) to the northeast and 15,000 ft (4,572 m) to the southwest.

It obvious that the 6 mile wide valley is an arbitrary figure written in miles, most of which the world population does not use and of which there are 3 legal definitions in the United States alone. The same with the wording "about" 10,000 feet or "about" 1,500 ft which appears to be rounded to the nearest 1000 and 100 feet respectively with the exact metre conversion to the nearest metre. You might be comfortable with feet and miles but 96% of the planets population uses SI and this article is about a Geographic feature in Central Asia where the unit of measure is SI. I know it was obtained and references from a book in English with miles and feet, but it still needs nominal equivalents in metres. I would refer you to Wikipedia Style Manual · International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question. Metricmike (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to add the metric conversions, just not within the text of a verbatim quotation, and not by parenthesizing the original Imperial measures as if the metric measures had priority.μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that metric measures have priority, the location is in central Asia where it's the only measurement used, as for "just not within the text of a verbatim quotation" leaves readers wondering what the distance or height might be because the units of measure they use are not present. If an article refered to cubits or ells or some other unit no longer used, you would have no problem I assume adding the equivalent feet? You seem inclined to ignore the Wikipedia style manual in this respect. Metricmike (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not allow editing to change one variant to another or to treat one variant as more legitimate than another. The original language is to be retained, and you are quite free to add the conversions using the conversion template. But the numbers in the article are from the referenced sources and hence have priority, whether the sources use imperial or metric measures. Not to mention that it would be absurd to say that a peak is "about" 3,048m" high. This is simply not a matter of debate, and I consider your continued posting about this matter on my talk page a form of incivility. You wear your POV on your sleave, and I warn you, edits which place the original sourced and referenced measure in parenthesis will be reported as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

While I think this is a great article, very informative and good reading, I still think it's contrary to Wikipedia guidelines to omit metric units because it's your preference. When the metric is in parenthesis, it's obviously not part of the original quote, but there to help people unfamiliar with miles or feet. Parenthesis: A qualifying or amplifying word, phrase, or sentence inserted within written matter in such a way as to be independent of the surrounding grammatical structure. As I've pointed out, 96% of the planet lives in a country where metric is used, This includes much of the English speaking world, including India, Pakistan, East Africa, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, to name a few. This is a far greater number of people than live in the United States. It's no good reading an article when a unit is "Greek" as it were with no commonly used translation. Metricmike (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You said above, feel free to add the metric measure, "just not within the text of a verbatim quote". Yet when it's done outside the quote you edit it out yet again, I get the feeling you have a wish to exclude SI from your articles even when it gives context to the article. Metricmike (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Zhang Qian

No problem; glad to be of service. Cheers and congratulations on the article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Altun Shan elevation

Hi Medeis, the link that I provided before [3] is working again (for me) and here is the other one that I gave you a few sections up [4], which notes that elevations are derived from SRTM data and in the case of Altun Shan were specifically used to over-rule the 5798 m figure. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Medeis, I do feel that I'm treading in a slightly grey area with mountain elevations in such a remote area and no 'official' database available. Mikenorton (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I was clicking on the Altun Shan link and hence not finding your own refs. The second source you gave me at least made an attempt to justify their sources - the peakbagger site is a bit bare.μηδείς (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the lede of the Altyn-Tagh page to match the section on major peaks and added the second ref to back up the first, which I kept as the second ref doesn't cover one of the peaks listed. Mikenorton (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall refrain

See topic, but well chosen user name, BTW. May we never meet again. Io (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you, but this is not hounding

Have you had a look at the link to Aikhenvald-Dixon, Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance? The book looks interesting, regardless of who edited it - it's a collection of essays anyway. This message, at least, is sent in the spirit of knowledge sharing. And, now I sign off with the wish previously stated. All the best. Io (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, sorry to disturb you, but please do not take tis as hounding

Hi again!

I have thought a bit about his all. You (no offence) have not answered any question. There are two questions I would like an answer to.

1. Which understanding do you have of ad hominem?

2. Where has Dixon engaged in that?

This not meant to be provocative, but I think we have a different understanding of the concept. I'm sure you are a decent fellow, but like me, you can be abrasive. No shame there, it's just a personality trait which can be subdued. (God knows, I try every day.)

All the best in a calm spirit of mind. Io (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PS:My understanding of ad hominem goes thus:

A:Hitler was a mass murderer.

B:Hitler was fond of animals.

C:Therefore we should not be fond of animals.

This is the classical ad hominem and if Dixon said anything, ever, along those lines, he does not have my trust.

Where has Dixon fallen victim to this fallacy?

Not mentioning somebody is not ad hominem nor is disagreeing with someone.

All the best Io (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, you have no reason for feeling friendly toward me, but I really am curious, how you would answer the questions above. I hate to leave loose ends, and although you may simmer when I leave you a message (again, sorry for being impolite), and although I appear as cynical and arrogant, I'm not used to holding grudges. Perhaps I'm hot-tempered, but it rarely lasts. So if you would be so kind, it would be much appreciated to have those two questions answered. And my recommendation about Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance stands. It's interesting and covers languages from much of the world.

All the best, and a non-reply will be taken as a sign that your grudge has not gone away, as is your right. Io (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman church, part deux

I hope that you are feeling encouraged by the recent restart of discussion. It is unclear where this will lead but at least there seems to be more effort at being put forth to find common ground.

Please do feel free to comment. I am assuming that you have some disagreements with some of what am proposing.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, can you reply to queries that have been put forth here? Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia in The Third Man

Hi. It's not clear to me that you are familiar with WP policies on pop culture references.

First, we don't include "mentions", which are simply references to the name of the book or film. For a pop culture reference to be included, it must be an "in-depth" reference.

Second, even pop culture items require third-party references. That is, some third-party has to have written about the reference. The comparison cannot be made by a Wikipedia editor between the two primary sources.

The items I've removed are either mere mentions, or unlikely to have been written about by a third-party. I give some references the benefit of the doubt if I feel they are likely to have been taken note of by a third party, even if they are unsourced. Yworo (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com

Amazon.com may not be used to source anything, as reviews on Amazon are not considered to be reliable sources. In fact, we are not supposed to even link to it, it's a commercial site which sells books. Yworo (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a citation of a signed independent editorial review, not a user review and not a product description. It was more than sufficient for its purpose, to show that the episode the third mouse is a parody of the movie the third man.μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dzungarian Gate

Hi, I have been intrigued by your comment on Talk:Dzungarian Gate:

I already added conversions for all actual measurements and estimates not within quotes. The verbatim quotes, which are narratives, not measurements of actual distances in any case, do not need conversions, and since they are verbatims they should not be altered. Linkifying the terms feet and mile is sufficient for those unfamiliar with the terms.

It seems a couple of editors might not fully understand your rationale. Could you please point me to the relevant section on the WP:MOS that mentions this? Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead for State church ...

Medeis,

Since we are having trouble coming to an agreement on the lead for State church I asked for help in resolving this.

Please feel free to state your concerns on this page. Hopefully a neutral party can help us communicate better. For what it's worth I am sorry that I have not been able to express my concerns clearly enough.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let it be reflected that McCorazao's request for arbitration was unanimously declined.μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Diogenes of Sinope II

Hi Medeis, yes I know your reaction was against the statue pic - I was having a little joke by suggesting it was Casper de Crayer's picture. :) FWIW, I don't regard the statue as a bad work of art, (although it's not great - and the photo's poor quality), your reaction "OMG no!" made me laugh. I was actually expecting that someone would restore the Waterhouse picture to the top of the page. I don't like Waterhouse at all, all those porcelain ladies of his - urgh! :) But until someone finally takes a picture of one of the ancient busts or figurines of Diogenes, I don't suppose I'll ever be rid of it. :) Singinglemon (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Crichton

Look, if you want to keep Michael Crichton listed as a physician, that's up to you. However, this doesn't make it so. He was not really a licensed physician as he had no formal training beyond medical school. ManFromMars22 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon controversy

Timothy Dalton's appearance and identity in this serial was the matter of promotional buildup by the BBC. While Dalton is credited as "Lord President" in the episode, series writer Russell T. Davies refers to Dalton as Rassilon in the Doctor Who Confidential episode for the story, and other websites such as IMDB credit Dalton as having portrayed the legendary Time Lord.

Justified

Your edit summary and revert were quite inappropriate.. I am not quite sure what you think we are doing here but you will not be disciplining anyone, nor threatening anyone for making good faith edits. Inline citations maybe needed, in that case the tag is used, references are checked or even revert and discuss on talk page in some cases. But we are not in the business of "discipline" or bad faith reversions. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to a:) read the references provided that state that the show is based in Lexington and the hills of KY [5], b:) contest any edit I make after you read the ref, c:) report me to whomever you care to. Your edit summary was wholly inappropriate. You would dare to chastise someone about a personal message in an edit summary with a personal message in an edit summary? Then revert an edit without checking the references not once but twice? And now you are going to quote guidelinesto me? Do not threaten me. I am not even remotely intimidated by you or threats of discipline... Hmm Yea I am accusing you of bad faith editing. Period. Shame on you. Take 5 minutes from your busy schedule of chasing down those nasty anons making those useless edits and read the damn edits before you. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let it be noted that 4twenty42o reluctantly added the necessary reference to the article Justified (TV series) [6].

List of alleged collaborators

You really did the AFD process wrong. The template you placed was a PROD, which requires no further action. What's more, your listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was appended on top of another listing, and not made into its own page. I'll let the prod run for now, and if someone contests it, I'll help you file it at AFD properly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're telling me! This is quite confusing - I have only done two speedy deletions before. Any and all help will be appreciated, and my apologies for messing up the other pages. I interpret your above statement as meaning that the article can be deleted after a week, assuming someone objects that the form was wrong, in which case it will have to be refiled?19:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed the prod, so I filed it at Articles for deletion. If the prod had not been removed, it indeed would've been deleted after a week. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, my thanks. Is there a shortcut you can provide me with directly to the instructions on how to file an afd? I can usually figure out how to use such things once I have found them.μηδείς (talk)

Let it be noted that the article was deleted [7].

Totally inappropriate?

Could you please remove your comments directed a me [8] and move them to a proper venue. Here will be fine if you're not interested in refactoring it per WP:TALK and WP:AGF as I require of comments on my talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Those comments were meant for the eyes of the person on whose talk page they were written. I found it better to address you in the second person, assuming you were watching that page, than to address him about you in the third person, which I find rude when done to me. If, as you write on the talk page of Bonsai, you have evidence of wrongdoing you cannot share with editors in general, then take the matter to the appropriate administrators. In the meantime, the rest of us will have to AGF on Lucasio0's part. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as harassment and a personal attack. If you want to start following AGF again, ask for some clarification. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've explained myself once [9]. I can accept that you may not have seen my explanation before making your comment. Please remove the comment and address my explanation. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Do not vandalize my comments. My stating that your action was inappropriate is not a personal attack. I do not edit at your command. The comment was meant to be seen by the person on whose talk page the action took place. Be warned that if you revert my edit or harass me again I will report it to the edit warring board without further warning.μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's anything here even remotely harassing in any way, please point it out and I'll happily refactor it.

Meanwhile, no vandalizing has taken place. Rest assured, I will not disturb your comment in any way again. Warnings that assume otherwise are unnecessary, perhaps inappropriate?

So, I take it you have no interest in addressing my explanation then? --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Patsy Cline

Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit Patsy Cline. I'm not sure you're aware, but the page is already categorized in Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States, which is a subcategory of Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents. Per WP:CAT#Categorizing pages, pages are placed into the most specific one in the branch. This is why I removed the latter, in case my edit wasn't clear. — ξ^xplicit 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not see the other category, I was confused, obviously,for the reasonfor your edit. But I don't always explain myself in the edit summary either.μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Crichton

Hi,

Your narrow phonetic transcription is contradicted both by the fact that you're using slashes rather than brackets (/aɪ/ raising is not generally considered phonemic), and by the IPA key that you're linking to, which has no definition for /əɪ/. If you wish to add a local transcription in addition to the generic one, please use the {{IPA-all}} template, or link manually to IPA chart for English dialects.

As for "having" to revert to 'rhymes with frighten' if we don't use your version, that would make no difference whatsoever: 'frighten' is /ˈfraɪtən/.

(Australia, BTW, does not conflict with either of those points.) — kwami (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Local pronunciation is appropriate. Especially for a person's name. Compare Glasgow, for which the local pronunciation is given, even though the majority of native English speakers use the North American pronunciation. There is no source for the /kraɪtən/ transcription. And /aɪ// vs /əɪ/ is phonemic in North America, where frighten is /frəɪtən/. . Contrast writer and rider, or whiten and widen, or heighten and Haydn, which have an identical flap for the dental, and are distinguished only by the vowel. μηδείς (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is Crichten himself, who says it's pronounced "cry-ten" as well as rhyming with frighten. Evidently he sees the vowels of cry and frighten as being the same.

I agree that /aɪ/ ~ /əɪ/ is marginally phonemic in NA. ("Spider", for example, in not predictable in having the /əɪ/ vowel.) However, because the English dictionaries we use do not make the distinction, and in fact many phonologists continue to interpret the distinction as being non-phonemic (all of your examples are derived from morphemes where it's predictable: write, ride, white, wide, height), we have chosen not to transcribe /əɪ/, and it is therefore not listed in the key. (Maybe I should add a note?.) In any case, it is predictable in this case, so it's a distinction without a difference. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, there is no difference, then why are you edit warring? This is not a question of how a common word should be pronounced, or even the surname Crichton in general. It is a matter of accurate description of how he actually pronounced his own name.μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring? I did not delete your transcription, but you deleted the one that follows WP conventions.

The difference is that it's easier for the reader to use WP:IPA for English than to slog through the entire IPA key. Many will be unable to figure out what [əɪ] sounds like from the latter, since it's not listed anywhere.

Armenian Language

It is fine if you want to add a comment that a specific and notable person still holds that Armenian is an Iranian language. You have to note him by name and say that it is his theory.;;;;

Um, that's exactly what I did. Actually, better than that. I listed several notable scholars of the Armenian language spanning a century, including a modern expert with quotes from 2007. Did you completely ignore everything that was written? Did you even look at the references? Your statement that it is "scholarly consensus for a century has been that Armenian is ... is closest to Greek" is completely false and I have provided scholarly references which demonstrate otherwise.

It seems many have a political monkey on their back and a bias that goes beyond ordinary comparative linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will respond to the above if you place it on the article talk page, not here.μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "first known greek-egyptian bilingual text, not first known bilingual text"

Hello there:

I saw this clarification you posted on the Rosetta Stone article. This question actually came up on the talk page for the article, but you made the change presumably not knowing about it.

Do you know of a prior ancient document/monument using a bilingual text that was made prior to the Rosetta Stone (and that was discovered prior to the (re-)discovery of the Stone?

In the end I think your wording may stand, but I'd be genuinely interested in knowing of a previous bilingual object made prior to 200 BCE that you can point to. Captmondo (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article didn't say first ancient bilingual text recovered in modern times - it said first bilingual text. Any properly qualified statement is okay with me. Perhaps it should be Egyptian-Greek rather than Greek-Egyptian. If you have any other comments put them on the article talk page and I'll respond there.μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We stuck with "first bilingual text" because we couldn't find any antecedent. It may exist, but myself and the other main co-author of the article couldn't find one that was discovered prior to the time of the discovery of the RS. But I like your suggested wording, and have used it on the article.

Will add this explanation to the talk page too. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

your edit summary on the History of general anesthesia article

Hello Medeis. This message is in response to the edit summary you made yesterday, on the History of general anesthesia article:

implied "while" comparisons amount to unreferenced editorial synthesis - why not say "while the savages in Ireland stuck with whiskey"? Let's stick to facts and npov, not agendas

I honestly do not understand what this is supposed to mean; please clarify. Further, I am the first to admit that I am not the world's best writer, but I do the best I can. I appreciate your attempts to improve upon my writing, but please remember to assume good faith. I have no agenda, other than to make this article as accurate and thorough as possible. If you see some hidden or overt agenda on my part other than this, can you please explain to me what it may be? The same applies for point of view. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robert Magocsi

Edit warring to insert undocumented, uncited information is against general wiki policy. As well you are engaging in WP:OWN. Though the surname may be Hungarian in origin, you need proof of that other than knowing Magocs is a place in Hungary. As well, he is American, and I'm assuming dual citizen Canadian now, but he is not Hungarian. Please cease from inserting fabricated information into articles.--Львівське (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Our reverts are one for one and you are the one being uncivil with accusations of vandalism. Tag the material as in need of a reference. Your objection seems nationalistic to say the least.μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that there is no citation, nothing more. Tagging a Ukrainian historian from New Jersey as "a Hungarian" seems nationalistic on your part, no? I'll ask him himself on Tuesday to clear this up, k?--Львівське (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. BTW I agree that Hungarian seems inappropriate since it is apparently applied to Hungarian nationals, which he is obvious not.μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but he is Rusyn, right? Transcarpathia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for some time; perhaps the name is a holdover from that and he is a Rusyn whose family was from Hungary, though not Magyar or Hungarian nationals by any means?--Львівське (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that "descent" categories require sourcing. If you have a reliable biographic source that states such descent, please add the fact to the article with a citation before adding the category to the article. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't just assert this, provide me the link to the policy.μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't read the category policies, why are you adding categories? It's here: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Yworo (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have told Lvivske that I am happy to wait for Magocsi's own opinion on the subject. But The claim was made "that 'descent' categories require sourcing". I don't see that exact claim made on the page linked to. This discussion has grown to general for this page so I am moving iot to the article's talk page please respond there.μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for continued general discussions - please use the article talk page.μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Moors murders

The sentence "Brady was declared criminally insane in 1985, since which he has been confined in the high-security Ashworth Hospital" (my bold) makes no sense.

This is the lead of a featured article that is currently on the main page being read by tens of thousands of people. To add a grammatical error once I can understand as a mistake, but to revert to it is not on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bolding my edit. I never would have recognized it otherwise. I don't know where you learned grammar, but the referent of the clause is the declaration of his insanity, which is a which, not a when. "since when" is the barbarism here. If this is such an obvious mistake, I am sure someone besides yourself will revert it, so why not give it a chance?μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's 1985, not the declaration, so it needs to be "since which time," or "since when," or the edit I made so you wouldn't revert again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, "in 1985" is what's called a pre-po-si-tion-al phrase. It describes his being declared criminally insane, which is still the logical subject of the relative phrase. You could omit "in 1985" and still have the logical phrase, "Brady was declared criminally insane, since which he has been confined..." You cannot omit "Brady was declared criminally insane" and have a logical sentence 'In 1985, since when he has been confined."

This is all rather basic, and rather laughable. But you obviously felt that something was wrong with your account, since you edited the article to fix the problem. So, no problem, lesson learned.μηδείς (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Armenian language

The "warning" by a user who says a view expressed by a linguistics professor who is expert on the Armenian language is "fringe" is plain POV. As a wiki editor I am entitled to undo his censorship of a valid linguistic hypothesis.