User talk:Pmanderson

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

---

This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.

Yours,

Rich Dengrove User:RDengrove

)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson 2

I've started this RFA for you. You know the drill :) (Radiant) 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson, are you aware that your RFA is not yet listed at the main WP:RFA page? Dragons flight 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is now. (Radiant) 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems people want you to change your signature to match your username, or the other way around. You may want to comment on this. (Radiant) 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Matawan and RFA

Pmanderson, I have given you my vote of support on the RFA based on our discussions in the past. But your difficulty to explain yourself and address the concerns of others on the Matawan matter is disconcerting. I may have to change my vote to neutral citing this thread. If you've made a mistake, that's nothing to be ashamed of. We all do. Admit it and let's move on. That's the characteristic of an admin. But to stubbornly grasp to a position that you cannot even explain is not. Please consider rereading the entire section as if you are a neutral party deciding whether to vote in support of your adminship, as this is what others may actually be doing, and add an entry accordingly. Thanks. --Serge 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference in Usage I seem to see

Well, thank you, Serge. A friend suggests an explanation for the difference in usage you seem to see. Along the Delaware, the following conversation is natural and normal:

A: "Where are you from?"

B: "I'm from Doylestown, Pennsylvania." or "Doylestown, PA"

If A knows Doylestown, PA, there may still be a Doylestown, New Jersey, and B is avoiding confusion. If he doesn't, the state tells A something, at least: which side of the river. (The natural phrasing for Philadelphians is "I'm from Philadelphia", but that's an example of primary usage.)

Coastal California is further from a state border than most of the United States can be; and I don't suppose you get many visitors from the deserts of Arizona or Nevada. Septentrionalis 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I have no idea what your point is. Do you really think that you need to explain to me why someone would clarify the state a city is in, regardless of whether the city name is unique or ambiguous, in a context where the state is not clear and may be relevant? If so, that's alarming. Two strangers talking about where they are from is a very different context from Wikipedia U.S. city article naming. In the former, the state may be very relevant; in the latter, it's completely irrelevant, except as disambiguatory information, if necessary, just like for any article in Wikipedia. --Serge 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I am the friend who suggested that you two are having a difference in regional usage, it would grieve me if my attempt to help became the cause for further dispute between you. The difference between you is stylistic. Reasonable people will see style issues differently, often for reasons that are hard to articulate in a way that the other person will understand. That doesn't mean that they are impossible to explain, but a false step or two is only to be expected, and it may require some effort on each side. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the basic issue, as I understand it, the great majority of places that I can think of in this region require disambiguation. A lot of place names come from England (Buckingham, Bedminster, Warrington, York, North Wales), famous world cities (Rome, Philadelphia, New Madrid) or even countries (Egypt, Holland). All of these require a qualifier perforce. There are at least three areas named "New Britain" that I can think of. Others have names from common features that doubtless have inspired names for places in other areas, like "Pineville", "New Galena", "Long Pond". Transliterated Algonquian names can be found anywhere that those tribes inhabited, sometimes with slight variations of spelling. Unique names are actually rare.

While there is nothing logically inconsistent with having Holicong surrounded by Buckingham, Pennsylvania, Solebury, Pennsylvania and New Hope, Pennsylvania, it seems silly to have most place names include a state and a few not. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Username

One solution would be changing the sig to, say Septentrionalis (aka. Pmanderson)? That way confusion can be avoided and Septentrionalis stays also in the sig... feydey 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Username note to dlohcierekim and reply

The concern about my sig is surprising; I've been asked about it only twice in all my career. My sig has always been this; changing now would mean disavowing my former edits and be perhaps more confusing. Some editors think of me by sig, some by username; changing either will puzzle somebody. If I must choose one, I would prefer the sig, which I intended as my wikipedia identity; but I have usually, and may have now, too many edits to change my username, and I do not wish to put that quite considerable burden on WP:CHU. Septentrionalis 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (brought over for continuity)

Thanks for your note. I guess I'm being overly picky. That's just a pet peeve of mine. I get confused when sig != username. It probably should not bear on the AfD. Will strike from my comment. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

May I ask you a question about disambiguation? I am newly exploring this area, because I was editing this article Classic Arts Showcase just randomly and noticed a link at the top to a disambiguation page. So I click it, and on the page Classic Arts Showcase (disambiguation) there is only the link back to the page I was editing. I thought it was odd so I spent some time reading up on the subject and determined there was no need for this page. So then I spend time trying to figure out how to delete pages when they don't qualify for speedy deletion, which I read about yesterday (a lot of reading to do around here). Anyway, while I was posting on the editor's talk page, I notice other people have said things to them about this issue, so I also find Hyperactive (disambiguation) which as you can see links back to one article but just lists things that don't have articles. Is this proper? Am I even making sense? :) Ugly Elephant 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked you directly because it looked like people didn't like people posting specific cases to that page. You seem to post there a lot, so I asked you. So it is normal to have a disambiguation page when none of the listed articles exist? Ugly Elephant 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Cyde's "wikistalking" is illusory. I spend time on discussion pages such as WP:DRV, WP:MfD; and WP:TfD. We tend to disagree; I thought, and think, that editors should be generally be left alone, and that the userbox matter was handled with excessive abrasiveness; I also think namespace redirects are harmless. I !voted accordingly in several polls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno what to tell you dude. When you're only getting 50% support for an RfA, that indicates some pretty important community trust issues that need to be addressed. When you have respected admins like Cyde talking about "Wikistalking" and vendettas, it certainly doesn't help your case. Even if the allegation is false and you are acting in good faith, it's still pretty bad that he perceives you as out to get him... either way you should work on that.

You've gotten some pretty good feedback and I doubt that RfA will reach consensus. I would honestly recommend a withdrawal at this point. Combine the really small issues like the improper RfA listing and the shady sig (props for addressing that right away, even though I'm sure you didn't like changing it and I wouldn't either) with some of the big ones like community trust and accusations of severe incivility and the recent 3RR, and it just equals horrible timing man.

If you really want an RfA to succeed, take six months and focus on being especially civil. Earn the respect of some of the oppose voters by making a genuine effort to work with them in harmony. Also, get really involved in the janitorial tasks that admins do so that you’re familiar with everything and so that people will have more confidence that you won’t make good-faith newbie mistakes as a new admin. And then file another RfA, which should go much much better.

I hope that advice helps. This is my first interaction with you and I'm certainly not out to get you, but in all honesty... the allegations raised in the oppose section are genuinely disturbing and do need to be addressed before you can expect enough support to achieve sysop status in a future RfA.

Good luck man. Look forward to working with you in the future. – Lantoka (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Green Frog article

A vandal added wrong data to the article, yet when I tried to remove it you kept reverting it back, leaving a "experimenting with wikipedia" template on my userpage. Allow me to refer you to WP:AGF.

The Brothers Broke

Please consider that Phillip Broke and Charles Broke were different individuals, and I am reversing the redirect accordingly. Largely, because I am attempting to find information. Cheers V. Joe 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your added content. As for the talk page, I tend to agree, but I think it's useful information elsewhere. I'm realizing there is a huge gap in history on Wikipedia right now. This is a big goldmine.

I'm doing some rather brutal copyediting right now. My aim is to make this article as simple yet intelligent as possible. I would ideally like for schoolchildren to read it. I also have a personal goal of removing the red links from James McCune Smith and get them all up to GA or FA by February (Black History Month in the US).

Again, thank you so much. This is making my day (which was already a good day). NinaEliza 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Just a quick word to inform you that I have closed your RFA. As you know, it didn't have the required level of confidence for me to promote you. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Madison in the "Democrat Party"?

Did I read you right, when you made this edit saying James Madison was a member of the "Democrat Party"? I realize you may not be happy about your RfA, but you yourself have complained when people use that term; I have backed you up on it. Skyemoor 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

President article

The 12 December, you removed a request for citation tag I had put in the sentence:

"Originally the term was used to refer to the presiding officer of a committee or governing body in Great Britain."

In the president article, under "Modern history of the designation".

Since you removed the tag, I think you should be able to explain how is it known that the term was first used in Great Britain (and not, e.g., France). Then I could add it to the article (since you didn't).

Thanks --euyyn 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

JSB - Good Article Efforts

Hi Thanks for the note left at my comments page. I appreciate your efforts to be conciliatory and to find validity in some of the comments raised by the GA folks. I, however, have no such patience. I did the first time around I came across this spectacle here, which resulted in a lengthy dispute at the project page about inline citation policy. As I see it, the good article project has been taken over by semi-literate hacks who pride themselves on having an "everyman" approach. They ask for clarification and substantiation that tends toward reduction ad absurdum and are simply lazy when it comes to chasing down concepts they do not understand. They ask for inline cites for basic things, stumble over simple ideas, and make foolish critiques (such as the imbecile original research claims raised at the GA review). There was some talk of forking GA to specific areas, such that people who were generally literate in the field could review relevant material (this was particularly so in the science pages), but in the end, no-one has the energy so WP:GA is becoming an empty concept. Intelligent criticism is always welcome; mindless nitpicking from a willful, even virtuous dilettantism is a waste of time. I note that none of the editors of the Bach article has commented. I have because this approach irritates me, but I am not a contributor to the Bach page, as you know. Anyway, these fellows are unlikely to take me too seriously and will not be too bothered by any comments I have to make, no matter their trenchancy. Eusebeus 10:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"waste of time"

Thank you for your kind words.

It's OK for different groups of people to hold opinions that are polar opposites. In fact, it's good. Democrats sometimes revile Republicans and vice versa, but in truth both are necessary to check the excesses of the other. Ditto for Deletionists and Inclusionists. Ditto for people who hold inline cites dear and those who wish to (almost) abolish them.

But there's an awful lot of unreasonableness being perpetrated in every one of the above discussions. Maybe I should start a guideline WP:Be Humble and Cooperative Even When You Are Absolutely Convinced You Are Right. That should be read by both sides of every debate.

And good work on Agrippina. Why couldn't we have worked instead of yammering and insulting each other?

--Ling.Nut 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "setting up the rules in their favor": Actually I think both sides of every debate do their sneaky-best and forceful-best to set up the rules in their own favor. Sometimes one side wins; sometimes the other. The danger would be if one side wins too consistently. That's my humble opinion. --Ling.Nut 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:inline-citation cabal: I'm really, really afraid of starting another argument. But I would very humbly suggest that perhaps ..just perhaps.. you are not seeing the forest for the trees. At the end of the day (a terribly hackneyed phrase, but it fits here) it is manifestly true that many articles are improved because WP:GA exists. And if articles are improved, then Wikipedia is improved. And if Wikipedia is improved — despite all the yelling and hollering and pumpkin-smashing — then it is all worthwhile. Those are just my personal thoughts. I don't mind at all or don't take it amiss or whatever if you disagree.

Best regards --Ling.Nut 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

knock knock! hate to interrupt the discussion. I hope you saw my note immediately above. But the reason I came here again is 'cause you dropped a note off on my talk page that may have been intended for Homestarmy. It mentions Autobianchi Primula, which I have not yet commented on.

Later! --Ling.Nut 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thoughts

Hi,

I see the grappling has begun. I am visiting relatives for the holidays and am sick as a dog. I hope to be feeling better tomorrow. But even if I am, I have limited access to the computer, and most spend time being sociable. :-)

You flatter me by calling me a linguist. I am currently a linguist-wannabe. I won't be a linguist until I hear those words, "Congatulations, Dr. Ling.Nut!". That won't be until two or perhaps three years from now.

I'm not sure how to reply to your comments. I actually think we are grappling with macro-issues such as "Is Wikipedia itself a reliable source? What role do domain experts play within Wikipedia?" You and I may or may not disagree on those.

I also think you've made this a personal issue; perhaps even a "crusade." I kinda question your ability to remain impartial & see the validity of the other side's. I hope that is not an offensive remark; it certainly isn't an insult. I've been in your shoes many, many times before.

I hope you can see the tremendous contributions GA has made to Wikipedia. I hope you can see that the question of whether WP is itself a reliable source bears on the issue of inline cites. I hope most of all that you can see that domain experts do not, cannot and should not have the same pride of place within Wikipedia that they enjoy elsewhere.

I'm sure you'll have many things to say. I hope I can reply a little.

I also hope there won't be any animosity between us. I seem to be acquiring a track record of offending domain experts (bot real and self-anointed). I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I try to do what I sincerely think is right; people choose to be offended.

Best Regards, Not-Yet-Dr, Ling.Nut

Re: Johannes Kepler

I appreciate your comment. I'll reply here to make sure you get the response.

There are several paragraphs on the Kepler article that aren't referenced. I would prefer one reference after each paragraph, to avoid misunderstandings.

When it comes to page references, I think they are useful and should be added when possible. Personally I like to add them for my own sake, so that I can check up on my own references.

I think the standard is to add the year of publication for the book within the reference, so that those with different editions of a book won't mistake. In this case the references should therefore be something like "Caspar (1993), pp 208-211"; see also Wikipedia:Harvard referencing.

Happy holidays. Fred-Chess 16:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Another sign of the Apocalypse

Check out the featured article for December 23, 2006. A Pokemon???!!! I'll retire to Bedlam! Robert A.West (Talk) 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A hint

Thanks for the tip, I'll add a little something.--M m hawk 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming?

I don't think you're achieving much by bitching on me for trying to apply naming conventions. There's absolutely no harm in shortening these kind of article titles. And the comments at talk:Fala are just really uncalled for.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chile settlement article names

There is no more consensus for you to move articles back than there is for Jaxhere to move them in the first place. Jaxhere is trying to do the right thing, and has moved a small number of articles at my suggestion to test for consensus in the absence of any well-known forum to discuss his proposal with other Chilean town article editors. If you have an opinion, you may voice it at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board (created since Jaxhere raised his proposal, and therefore not well known yet), but ideally the discussion should be driven by the people most affected, not by us. You are the only person to have objected to any of that batch of moves so far. Please do not revert the rest without a demonstrated consensus to move them back. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Occitanian slugfest

Hello Septentrionalis! In your recent comment on a Category for discussion debate [1] you conceded that the Girondins were not Occitan. Inquiring minds want to know why not? EdJohnston 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sesqui...

Would you mind also looking at sesquitertium, sesquiquartum, sesquiquintum? I am not familiar with these terms, and their articles show little claim to notability; I prodded the articles as dictionary definitions from another language. CMummert 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Saparmurat Niyazov

Despite the overwhelming consensus against moving this page, Svitrigaila is insisting the article on Saparmurat Niyazov reflect his transliteration. Please revert him so he understands that he does not have consensus. KazakhPol 01:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Republicanism

I don't have time to read Banning, for starters. What definition is being employed? For that matter, who among the founders would not have described himself as a "republican?". Robert A.West (Talk) 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In re Banning: "Access to the collection is restricted to faculty, students, members, and staff of subscribing institutions." Robert A.West (Talk) 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have labeled it. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Perth Amboy, New Jersey

There's a Perth Amboy article and Perth Amboy category, which I will refer to as PAart and PAcat. You have removed three categories from PAart and placed them in PAcat, to include Category:Cities in New Jersey, Category:Faulkner Act and Category:New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone. Placing category A on the article for category B is appropriate if all articles in category B will also belong to Category A. For example, it would make sense to put the category "People from New Jersey" on the category "People from Perth Amboy"; after all, every person from Perth Amboy is from New Jersey. Putting the Category:Cities in New Jersey, Category:Faulkner Act and Category:New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone on the PAcat is stating that every building, school and bridge in PAcat is a city, a Faulkner Act and a UEZ, which is completely illogical. On teh other hand, it makes sense to keep the Middlesex County category on the PAcat, because everything in perth Amboy is in the Middlesex County cat. As such, I will revert the changes to remove the three categories in question from the PAcat and put them back on the PAart where they belong. Alansohn 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DOMAlicious!

I replied to your comment on my talk page. In short, you're right, but inline citations would vastly improve the article by weeding out OR speculation. GertrudeTheTramp 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my apologies for poking you in the pet peeve. GertrudeTheTramp

Democrat Party

Pam--Thanks for keeping your eye on the "Democrat Party" article. If it were up to me, that article would just disappear, but I'm glad you're there to keep it locked inside its filthy little cage. 71.139.33.169 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Woodrow Wilson

Hello, an idiot anon-user has added a 'garbage' posting, after your posting on the subject 'March 4th'. Just lettin' you know. GoodDay 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige

So I did some research and checked with some pretty credible sources as to what they print, in ENGLISH, for the name of this region (and province) in Italy.

• Fodor's - a well recognized and respected name (and expert guide) has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

• Michelin - also expert in travel guides - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bozen".

• Rand McNally (name speaks for itself) has world, regional, and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

• Streetwise Map's regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

• Dorling Kindersley or "DK" - by far, probably the best travel guides available - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

• Lonely Planet (the self-proclaimed largest independently-owned travel guide) regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

• Hammond Map - a subsidiary of Langenscheidt Publishing Group (a privately-held German publishing company) - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

As far as proof, I am quite sure that the above sources are credible enough, especially in the sense of geographical knowledge, expertise, and English-translation. Rarelibra 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You ignore the facts. The sources I quoted are PUBLISHERS, not just 'mapmakers'. Several are world-reknown (and world-based). Just keeping you informed of the ongoing mistakes. Trust me, it doesn't matter here - I was very relieved to see that everywhere else BUT wiki people will see the real and official name. Rarelibra 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jewish Communist Organisations in Revolutionary Russia

Your field more than mine: is there any excuse for this template? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and the Celestial Masters

Before you read this stuff. What do you mean by 'closed' in the edit summary you made when reverting my move? Should I wait for an admin to 'close' the debate? Zeus1234 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about the article Way of the Celestial Masters which you changed back to Tianshi School after a 4-2 vote in favor of having it at Way of the Celestial Masters. Let me give you a short history of this article. I wrote it in early December. In late December, a user changed the article name uniliateraly without any discussion to Tianshi School. Instead of following the controversial move procedure, he moved it himself. Ever since then I have been trying to change it back. I was hoping that a 4-2 vote would have been enough, but it seems that it is not. I don't understand why I have to go through so much effort to get an article back to its original title after someone else used an incorrect procedure to rename it in the first place. Shouldn't the onus be on the user who changed the name to Tianshi School to keep it that title? Can't the article be put back to its original name? Then if the user still wants to have it changed to Tianshi School, he should have to go about the proper way.Zeus1234 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the Wikipedia page about consensus, it says that a super-majority that consists of 60-80% in favor can count as the equivalent of a consensus. a 4-2 vote would be 66% in favor, therefore it would seem this would qualify as a supermajority. I moved the article because I saw this information and thought that such a move would be fine as per the wikipedia guidelines about supermajorities in article name changes. Look at the info here:[2]. Is 66% not enough? If that is the case, what is?Zeus1234 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Thanks for the offer. For now I'll take a raincheck; I may be called on for travelling to the other side of the globe any moment now, not knowing when – starting sometime in the next four weeks and lasting for a month or so. Right now might be bad timing. I must also say that the topic is rather distant from what actually interests me, and also, having looked at some RfCs in progress, that these appeared to me as a drawn-out and excruciatingly boring process, with unclear effectiveness.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Move relisted

Sorry to drag this out, but the requested move at Basel earthquake was deemed malformed, so I had to relist it. As you participated in the previous discussion, please add your opinion at Talk:Basel_earthquake#Requested_move. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, there is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. --Bob 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"You guys should put the cart before the horse"

Yes, that was actually said in an emotional plea to keep a template [3] that noone else (including the members of the relevant project) sees a need for. I thought it an oddity worth noting. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If he is a nice guy, he should step away from the Reichstag. He has obliquely accused five well-established Wikipedians of being a group of sockpuppets, directly accused all five of bad faith and assuming bad faith and dismissed reasonable assertions by editors whose edit histories suggest knowledge of, or at least interest in, the field. The template in question was created by User:Nintendude, who is permabanned. I wonder if FrankB feels that Nintendude got a raw deal or something? His vehemence is hard to understand otherwise. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

I thought you might be entertained/bewildered by the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18#Template:Catholic-link. No need to comment if you don't want to, and as always, feel free to point out if you think I am wrong. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Florian Gate

To quote from Wikipedia:Requested moves: “Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. The naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent.” — For your information, I happen to be that “earliest contributor” to Florian Gate article. I suppose, you didn’t care to read what was being said on its Talk page. I wouldn’t be surprised, considering your final unilateral move. --Poeticbent  talk  21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. I have read it; and that's how I know you have no support. As for me, Florian Gate is at least possible English, and that's why I haven't !voted. If the closing admin finds you have consensus, that's fine by me too; but you certainly don't have it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing a possible survey by User:Piotrus. Anyway, I guess you didn't care for it much, since you didn't care for the fact that "the naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent." Consensus means general agreement. Such agreement has never been reached, so what were you trying to prove. --Poeticbent  talk  22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on January 27 2007 to Tenedos

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 12:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Grrr, you got yourself blocked over those maps? Pity, I came late to the rescue, I was just going to make you a little present that might have helped. Was just testing my skills in mapmaking today. Like this one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like Fut.Perf.'s too

I've read that talk and I've done something. Your proposed scale in terms of width (Limnos to Troy), suggests respective height (Lesbos/Mitilini to Thrace/Constantinople). The map didn't include the sea boundary, but it wouldn't be difficult to draw it if we had the data. I've also "tilted" it a bit from South to North, so as to give your requested perspective re mountains etc. NikoSilver 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed. Please sign.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St. Florian's Gate, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alternatives for establishing possible changes to the US comma guideline

Would you consider changing your comment 'Con per all the arguments above; again,...' since that sounds like a vote. This was not intended as a poll but rather a list of pros and cons. Thanks. Vegaswikian 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Florian Gate / St. Florian's Gate

Hi Pmanderson. As the Mediation Comittee are unable to assist in settling the naming dispute on Talk:St. Florian's Gate (as you refused to agree to mediation with no reason provided), I have tried to settle this dispute before it proceeds to the only subsequent step, which is the Arbitration Committee.

I have suggested Florian's Gate as a compromise, and thus far all parties have indicated this would be acceptable. Would you be happy with this? Proto::► 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratic nonsense

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
But you'll have seen that already. However, I wouldn't like to queer the pitch by not following sacred process. I don't know if you want to sign up or not. Would be nice if you could find it in yourself to join in. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm tired of discussing about Waldemar and Mario's spelling, aren't you? I'd rather not worry about them anymore as all the real arguments have already been stated. Right now you have replied to both of them so this is my proposal, I'll let you have the last word on Waldemar's topic if you let me have the last on Mario's (of course, this just applies to the exchange of arguments between the both of us), what do you think?Rosa 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mooncow Glosses has moved!

Thanks for linking to my Mooncow Glosses! For your information, it has moved, and the new URL is http://zompower.tk/gloss.php. Again, thanks! Bi 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I decided to be WP:BOLD and fix the link. Sorry and thanks! Bi 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish Sock Puppets

Thanks for the explanation. :)Rosa 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

US cities naming conventions

I definitely will go through the archives. As a newcomer to the discussion, I had no idea for how long this had been going on. Nevertheless, since the issue is open once again anyway, I reserve the right to voice my opinion on it. I am not going to (ever) re-open the issue myself once it's closed (I have a lot of other things to do without adding US cities naming conventions to my to-do list), but I am going to participate each and every time the discussion is legitimately re-opened, not because I am stubborn and unreasonable, but because I genuinly believe it would be for the best of Wikipedia, and because I find none of the opponents' points convincing. That's my right as a Wikipedian, and I'm going to use it.

Rest assured, I have no personal prejudices against either you or Serge. No matter how many things we agree or disagree on, I don't see it as a barrier for any potential future collaboration. If you see something you believe I can help with, you are very welcome to contact me and ask for my help; any time. Hopefully, same is true the other way around. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't expect everyone to want the same thing. That'd be too good to be true, wouldn't it? :) Truth is, there are plenty of policies and guidelines in Wikipedia that I personally don't like, yet, as an administrator, have to uphold. I am not challenging them all, simply because I know that my time could be far better used elsewhere, but I do usually participate when those policies are challenged by someone else. If a policy is changed as a result, I can get back to editing happy; if it's not, well, then I just get back to editing. No big deal, really. (Universal) Consistency is nice and imprortant, and would be great to have, but content and organization (as opposed to lack of organization) are more important still. After all, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a "How to Write an Encyclopedia" manual. See you around!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sara Ramirez

After five days without discussion, the RM at Talk:Sara Ramírez could use an endorsement. Or opposition if you choose, but I see no reason for it Gene Nygaard 06:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankfurt (Oder)

Hello. Please stop edit-warring about the name of this city and instead join the other editors in discussing it at the article talk page. If you continue to revert others' edits without discussion, especially against the apparent consensus judging from the article talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Sandstein 11:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

*

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Template:Polygons. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kamope · talk · contributions 14:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Please read WP:ATT#How_to_cite_and_request_a_source; simply removing unsourced material, unless it is attacks on a living person, is strongly deprecated. Also, your {{cn}} has stirred me to add a footnote to 2 Samuel 11:4; but you really should have consulted a concordance yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please can you let me know what I deleted? I'm generally an inclusionist, so I find it hard to believe I would have deleted anything, but rather would have added a cn tag. --Rebroad 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now read the WP:ATT, which I had already read recently, but I'm not sure why you have suggested I read it again. Please could you explain? Thanks, --Rebroad 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Please explain how the sentence would be misleading, in your opinion. Could you suggest other ways of addressing the concern? I fully admit that that particular sentence is not a very good way of doing it. I would really prefer to just delete "not whether it is true", which in my opinion is no longer needed once the word "verifiability" is not there. I'm sorry, but I need to clarify: are you opposed to inserting the sentence I suggested? (This may seem obvious, but I thought it was very obvious that Crum375 was opposed and I was wrong on that, so I'm trying to get everyone to clarify -- sorry to take up your time in that way.) Thanks. --Coppertwig 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page, but it doesn't really answer my question. You say the sentence is ambiguous and that you and I think it means different things. What do you think it means? What do you think I want it to mean?

You suggest having the discussion on the Community Discussion page. Somewhere on WP:ATT/talk, some people clarified that the Community Discussion page is for talking about such questions as whether WP:ATT is policy or not, while (if I understood correctly) WP:ATT/talk is for discussing the wording of the policy. Is my understanding on that wrong? Is the different purposes of the two pages laid out somewhere? Is the Community Discussion page never going to be archived? Sorry to take up your time with all these questions. Actually, none of them desperately need to be answered -- I think other solutions are better than that particular sentence, anyway. --Coppertwig 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

David

Hi. Thanks for the citation you added here. I'm not sure why you labelled the request as frivalous though! It's pretty important considering it's disputed by Muslims. Also, why did you change the redirect to the disambiguation page at the top of the article please? Was the existing description not sufficient? I merely changed it to reflect the description given on the existing disambiguation page as it is currently written. --Rebroad 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just checked the citation and I couldn't find any mention of David commiting adultery. If you could please clarify the citation it would certainly help. In the mean time, I shall re-instate the cn tag. Cheers, --Rebroad 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please see my response to your comment in Talk:David#Adultery. There are indeed commentators who construe the passages involved in a way that absolves David of adultery, and Wikipedia can't accept an editor's own personal opinion about what the Bible means in general, and particularly not when there are reliable sources who say otherwise. Would you be so kind as to identify and cite a notable commentator who reads these passages in the way that you do? One more comment: Suggest reviewing WP:Assume Good Faith policy. Recommend not assuming an editor is being disruptive merely because he or she is coming from a different point of view. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hann. Münden

Just for you to know, I strongly disagree with you ignoring the RM result and moving the article to Münden through the back door. The article is now up at WP:RFC. doco (☏) 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sexual objectification

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Triacontagon -> Tricosagon

Hi ! Noticed you moved Triacontagon to Tricosagon yesterday, but the article itself still uses the term triacontagon (4 times in article text plus once in image caption). Is there some mystic reason behind this, or should I go ahead and fix it ? Gandalf61 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ... your reply implied that you weren't sure whether tricosagon was a real word, let alone whether it was the correct term for a 30-sided polygon. So I did some quick checks. Mathworld uses the term triacontagon for a 30-sided polygon here. And triacontagon gets over 1,000 Google hits. Whereas tricosagon gets only 7 Google hits, all of which seem to be using the term to refer to a 23 sided polygon - see here for example. Are you quite sure this article shouldn't be called triacontagon ? Gandalf61 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am still unhappy about the current inconsistency between article name and article text, but now I don't know which direction to take to fix it. I think we need a reference. Do you have a reference for using tricosagon rather than triacontagon, which we can add to the article to support the renaming ? If not, should we perhaps consult the collective brains at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to see if someone else has a reliable source for one name or the other ? Gandalf61 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hann. Münden

I have moved it back. I think unilateral moves directly after an uninvolved editor has examined the arguments and closed the move debate are not a good idea. If you care about the page title so much, please wait a month and file another move request per WP:RM. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have my support on that RfC on Serge

He has been vote canvassing for the page move Talk:Boston, Massachusetts with people that have supported him in the past here. I think that is crossing the line. Agne 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago quote in the Manual of Style

Hi PMAnderson,

You might be interested to know that a user wishes to remove the CMS quote on the Manual of Style and is leading a discussion to remove it on the grounds that it is ugly, American and pretentious. The discussion is ongoing and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#That quote in the lead. Your views would be appreciated.

Neonumbers 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma

Should you wish to comment, User:Rarelibra has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

David

Clarified that the indicated view is "a" Talmudic view. No need to address the question of whether it is the only such view. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

David

I am asking you to please stop adding unsourced material to this article reflecting your personal point of view. You added a claim that the Rabbis of the Talmud represented a "later Abrahamic tradition" and took the viewpoint they did because they felt distressed etc. about what "really" happened. You have no sources for any of these claims. There are different religious perspectives about what the David story says and means. WP:NPOV prevents you from claiming your personal reading of the text is "true" no matter how convinced you are of its correctness. And WP:V as well as WP:NPOV prevents you from providing your own original research explanations that those who disagree with you do so because they are "distressed" etc. Wikipedia requires laying out the different points of view and indicating who holds them. You can't favor one view over the other just because it's the one you happen to agree with. And you can't add your own personal beliefs about why you think people who disagree with you hold the views they do. If you have difficulty discussing this we can take it to mediation. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and revert back if you'd like, I disagree with portions of the article but agree they aren't yours, clearly I'm up too late and under Wikistress. Will sort this all out later. Good night. --Shirahadasha 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the right to edit my replies on a talk page?

If you have some issue with style, fix the style and leave my reply intact.

--Mactographer 09:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Try Template:notyours Nardman1 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what this template "not yours" is all about. All I saw was a bunch of my text that I quoted from the LOC site removed in the middle of an edit by you. On one side it was there, on the next side it was gone and all that was left was, "Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks." And you did both the edits, so it looked like you did it. If Nardman was somehow to blame, then he made it look like you did it and you have my apologies. --Mactographer 09:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Another look at Nardman1's memo, and it appears he is tell me I should have used that template. So maybe he isn't to blame for the missing text. But the changes still happened in-between a couple of your edits as linked above. If you can explain to me how it happened between two of your edits and yet you had nothing to do with it, then I will apologize. But for now, it looks like it was a function of your edit. --Mactographer 09:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hectagon

I have listed the shapes at WP:DRV Nardman1 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• The people at DRV think it might be more a case for mediation. I will submit it to the unofficial mediation cabal [5] as a first step if you agree. I don't want to get into an edit war with you and I think that would be the outcome without outside help. Nardman1 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jag(i)ello

Would you support either Jagello or Jagiello? What other names would be acceptable for you? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

you've been blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I reverted a revert warrior three times; and, after the third edit, made a minor edit to a completely independent section. When a third editor reverted both edits, I accepted the decision on the point of dispute, and repaired the collateral damage. There was no fourth revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking administrator to respond to this, after which I will review it. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

If you have a problem with me, it is incorrect to attempt to slander me on a talk page. You have the right, if you wish, to bring up a RfC if you think you have a case against me. So be warned - I will not sit by idly and allow you to slander me on a talk page for a professional discussion. Rarelibra 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, all accusations and uncivil remarks in any direction stop immediately. There is no reason for heated name-calling on any page and much less regarding something like a map or a naming convention.

I took a look at the page the two of you are disputing but frankly have not been able to figure out exactly what is being argued over. If this can be put in terms a little more accessible to previously uninvolved editors, I'll be glad to offer my opinion. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad - the point I am arguing over are the constant comments coming from Pmanderson - intelligent insults, comments that are demeaning or condescending, etc. He won't stop. In the Naming conventions (geographic names) area, I decided to give my input and Pmanderson's response was to slander me as an "uncivil" and "profane" editor. If these words have merit, I am asking Pmanderson to call out a RfC. Otherwise, I am asking him to stop such insults, accusations, and slanderous words. If he is mad about something, he cannot take it out by attempting such responses on a professional discussion page such as that with the naming convention. That is all. His comments should remain clean or he should refrain from commenting at all. Rarelibra 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Waldemar Matuška

If you put {{accuracy}} to that article as a revenge for lost consensus that's not a good way of good faith wikipedian. You did not discuss accuracy on the talk page so I removed that tag. If you wish to re-add it, do it, but please discuss what do you think that is wrong with the article otherwise I will remove it again. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was pretty clear, his name is really Matuška. It is the same case as you are not Anďeřson but Anderson. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your tag will be removed by someone else, consensus has been set and was clear. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag has been removed by the administrators. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do as you think, but as wrote by Husond, it is now considered as a vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Polish obscenity?

That user declares that he has a command of Polish language 'intermediate' and his obscenity is similarly 'medicore' :> 'glupy dupek' is only partially correct: the first part is a mispelling of the word stupid (głupi), the second is correct obscenity for the word asshole. Without going into more details (the user also forgot about declinations), I had warned this user about observing WP:CIV. As I am not involved in this matter (I have never interacted with that user), I cannot sign a RfC but I'd be happy to translate the obscenity and confirm it indeed is one. Also, if that user continues to be uncivil, I'd support blocking that user for violations of WP:CIV/WP:NPA.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You incorrectly assume about misspellings and definitions. Sorry, but there was no direct obscenity used, nor did anything translate correctly. Because you are pushing this issue after it was already handled, I will assume that you have a personal vendetta against me. Piotrus cannot warn me about something that was already handled and corrected (and warned before). Now I am going to issue you a warning. You will cease and desist against me, as Newyorkbrad has asked you to, or face the same fire. I will not stand for your professional accusations and your intelligent insults against me. So cease this now and go back to constructive edits. Thank you. Rarelibra 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding because my name was mentioned. Constructive edits for everyone, please. Obscenities toward or about other users, near-obscenities, foreign phrases that could be understood as obscenities, all should not be used. Work issues out like colleagues or stay away from each other. And let past incidents fade. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After my recent interactions with Rarelibra (removing warnings from his user page, issuing threats, failing to provide any diffs to back up his accusations) I am now ready to review an RfC of that user if it is ever created and describe his behaviour as I have seen it so far.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to my userpage, FYI - It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages. Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment, and several threads currently on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. I have a right to remove anything I like from my userpage(s), as removing is an acknowledgement of reading it. Just so User:Piotrus understands, his continued involvement on my userpage will cause a violation of 3RR and become reason for being blocked for 24hours to consider his actions. Just so we are also all aware, User:Piotrus is an administrator who is currently the topic of an ongoing RfC for his own actions. Let's not get carried away here. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Hectagon

I can help mediate this situation. Can you please leave a note on my talk page letting me know what your current view on the situation is and what your desired outcome would be? Hope I can be of service. Best, JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Just to clarify, you are in favor of the current status of these articles, keeping them as redirects to and with relevant comments in the Polygon article (and Prism (geometry) article). One question: what part or parts of the definitions did you dispute? What rewording of the definitions would you propose? Thanks, JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I found this page at MathWorld, which appears to be mostly consistent with the table presently included at Polygon. Do you consider that website to be a reliable source? --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. I'm going to wait for Nardman1 to respond. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate if this compromise offer is acceptable or if you would like to suggest changes. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Stop making accusation comments that I am suggesting that Wikipedia "lie" to its readers. It is not true, there is no proof, nor does anything I mention in my comment allude to such an accusation. You are incorrect in even attempting to phrase such. Please remain civil in your approach and DO NOT attempt to 'reword' someone's input, like mine. Removing your comments is not 'vandalism' by myself - it is removing incorrect comments. Read my quote - I am saying that a direct translation is incorrect, therefore, I believe we should use the diatrics to be most correct, with a redirect from the non-diatric name. That is all. No suggestion to lie or deceive. Rarelibra 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not have the right to offer up "opinion" in the form of accusation. That is presenting a false statement, and in itself, can be removed. Doing so is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please stop. Rarelibra 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Mathematics page: request for comment

Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cfd #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan

You may want to reconsider your stance, see my reply to you there. Cat ^chi? 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Subsidizing Newspapers

Jefferson kept an editor of a paper he founded (Freneau of the National Gazetter) on the government payroll, and that is the kind of government "subsidy" it appeared was being alluded to for Hamilton in his article. Hamilton founded two newspapers and wrote for them, so I suppose that can be interpreted as "subsidy" -- do not newspaper founders support their enterprizes?. Patronage certainly holds true by his steering government contracts to favorable printers, but that kind of activity does not appear to be unusual in the US or likely anywhere else in the contemporary period - and continued up through the late 19th century I understand. The implication in the article that Hamilton's actions were unique is misleading. A nice little piece related to this may be found at http://epaper.jdnews.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=SkROLzIwMDYvMDkvMTcjQXIwNDIwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom Hope you enjoy it.Shoreranger 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmuldrow

Thanks so much for your comment at the above-named page. I have responded to your comment; as I say in my response, I believe you may want to take a second look at the Garrett talk page. Best wishes, and again, thanks for your comment. Hydriotaphia 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of Tigrinya Speakers

Thanks for responding to the "Number of Tigrinya Speakers" RfC. I've posted my interpretation of your comments. I'd appreciate it, if you indicated to what extent my interpretation agrees with your intention. Thanks. Itayb 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran) page

It's ridiculous what some of those editors are doing here: [6] They remove fully sourced information, enforce POV, and remove dispute banners. Can we involve more administrators, as this is not right, they shouldn't be allowed to do this. --AdilBaguirov 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend you of course. Please do place the disputed tag and make other edits. The reason I replaced the intro paragraph is because the one you had (I didn't notice your name, I paid attention to the content) was the same as from the old version, citing such POV sources as Kavekh Farrokh, etc. I appreciate your involvement and once again, didn't mean to put you in an awkward position. --AdilBaguirov 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: 48 hours for general edit warring and a 3RR violation on Azerbaijan (Iran). Thatcher131 06:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

No 3RR violation; three reverts, in dealing with undiscussed reversions which removed sourced information, which is blanking, and a compromise edit. I was attempting to settle a pre-existing revert war. Please note that the block last month was not based on WP:AN3 and was found to be unbased.

I may be sailing too close to the wind, but I don;t think I crossed the line, this time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Hi Pam. Long time, no see. You helped me out with "Democrat Party" and "Democratic-Republican Party" a while back and I'm wondering if you would like to weigh in on an editorial concern at the Ralph Nader article. I put the following in the first paragraph: "In the Atlantic Monthly's list of the 100 most influential Americans, published in its December 2006 issue, the magazine ranked Ralph Nader as the 96th most influential American: 'He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.'[1]" However, some of Nader's fans want to drop the 17-word quote from the magazine article and just say that Nader was 96th on the list. I think the quote is necessary to explain why he's on the list, but some think it's unfair to Nader. Want to weight in? Griot 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New article on Steve Omohundro

I found some new information on Steve Omohundro that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said

Your WP:ATT poll talk post that ended with "As one of those who both worked on WP:ATT and supports it, I ask you to think again before you keep on with this" was one of the smartest things I've seen said on WP in weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron Chernow

I have responded to your comments at Talk:Ron Chernow. Casey Abell 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given in, albeit reluctantly, on the issue of quotes from a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and from one of the nation's leading book review publications. I believe these quotes accurately represent the critical consensus on Chernow, which has been strongly positive. But I am making a good-faith effort at compromise.

However, I can't understand why you continue to revert the bare mention of DNA research into Hamilton's ancestry. This is not controversial or in any way "hagiographic" about Hamilton or Chernow. The article doesn't praise such research, only mentions its existence, which is a fully sourced fact. I also can't understand why you have reverted the fully sourced and accurate item about the George Washington Book Prize. The article already contains information about other prizes, including the National Book Award, which Chernow has won. And the Wikipedia article on the prize itself mentions Chernow's award. So why can't we mention it in the Chernow article?

I also don't understand your reference to my factual and sourced statements about your Wikipedia record as a "personal attack." This is ironic from an editor who referred to me as "irresponsible" and "dishonest." [7] I only pointed out your record to explain that I did not want the Ron Chernow article to become another example of the edit wars which have led to your blocks, or the incivility and conflicts with other editors which have led to your failed RfA's. I realize that such a record is unfortunate, but it's completely within your power to change the behavior which has led to the record.

This is not easy for me to write, because I strongly dislike conflicts with other editors and I always look for compromise. I have attempted to compromise on the Ron Chernow article, even beyond what I think is justified. Please don't make this into another one of the conflicts which have hampered your contributions to Wikipedia. Your record is strongly positive in many ways, and there's every opportunity for you to work cooperatively with other editors to improve the encyclopedia. Casey Abell 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search found some independent stuff referring to Chernow's involvement in Hamilton DNA research: [8] and [9], for instance. The item isn't of huge importance, but there's no reason to delete it from the article. There's no excuse for deleting the award won by the biography. Not many bios of founding fathers get a 50K award. Casey Abell 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

The occasion of our private(?) discussion concerning WP:ATT reminds me to do something I have thought many times. Which is to say: Thank you for all the contributions you make to bringing more sanity to Wikipedia. I usually abstain, because I haven't the stomach for it, except for scattered remarks for the WikiProject Mathematics folks. But you have bearded the lions and kept your head. The result is a better product, and a better process. I've noticed, and I appreciate it. --KSmrq^T 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the fix on "note that". I need to fix that on other pages I was trying to include the regional words on. G** d*** your page is slow with Firefox! :P Icsunonove 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolzano

I think you need to move the talk page? there is a bolzano and bolzano-bozen talk now. Icsunonove 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sulla

I've decided to stop pussy futting around and really improve the Sulla article. I am removing gratuitous opinions and unencyclopedic qualifiers. The version Sulla16 keeps reverting to is pretty bad, so it would be a good thing if others helped clean it up too. Sulla16 might eventually realize that he doesn't own the article and that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Hope you volunteer! Vincent 05:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

French princes

Hello;

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#French princes revisited. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Charles 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Please stop adding sections, unless you have decided to buck all concensus and ignore the Q1 poll. Also, you can be reported for a 3rr violation. - Denny 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Very peculiar how you took yourself out of the equation... as if the mess at the poll had nothing to do with you and you were a mere bystander.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the simple version conditionally

While it's now been lost in the shuffle, I've suggested rather than the verbose question to accompany the simple question, simply having an open end. Ask the simple question and then, without a list, "what arrangement do you prefer?" The workability of this would all be in the instructions. Would you endorse the simple question, if we could properly describe an open end? Marskell 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please move your comment under Discussion, to keep everything organized. --Mardavich 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There different sections for a purpose, discussion should not be taking place under the vote section. --Mardavich 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's a matter of courtesy to the person who opened the survey and designed the layout. The discussion section was put there for a reason, to keep everything organized. But do as you wish. --Mardavich 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your ATT poll !vote

When I refactored all the !votes into sections, I put you in the neutral camp, but I'm not sure that's where you actually want to be. I think this was a mistake actually, as your message seems to be "I could have supported, but must oppose". I'll leave it to you to move it where it belongs if necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT poll refactorisation

Re: ATT Poll My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. We've got "Support some merger, but not this one." and we've got "Compromise/Neutral" - but surely to compromise is also to "support some merger but not this one"? - particalarly in my case, where I've said I'll support the merge but with a few qualifications (or read: compromises) -- perhaps I am mistaken, and perhaps you can clarify what is meant by 'compromise'? In any case, I don't know if "Compromise" should strictly be next to neutral. But overall, the way it was before you decided to rearrange it, was perhaps better. Rfwoolf

• I am less concerned about the merger than about what the policies going into/remaining in effect declare, imply or encourage. Therefore I want vote options that don't "grandfather in" overly-restrictive policies which have not hitherto been adhered to by most editors in practice. Thus:
  1. I oppose wording that authorizes deletion of undersourced content (rather than tagging it) unless it is disputed as inaccurate, libelous, or misleading.
  2. I oppose wording that protects content widely known or overwhelmingly alleged to be non-credible (based on relevant, reliable) sources.
  3. I oppose exclusion from WP:RS of sources that are widely treated as reliable by experts in a field, particularly in obscure fields where sources in English are relatively rare or not updated, even if they are personal websites, Usenet FAQs, conference presentations, or texts that may not meet the expertise in relation to the subject at hand standard because they do not focus exclusively on the subject of the article, such as dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopedias and other survey sources. (And thanx, Septentrionalis, for asking!) Lethiere 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

Dear editor,
You recently took part in the discussion of this move request. The format of the move request has been modified, to simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator.

You are invited to re-state your opinion on the issue, or modify your previous comment, under the new format. - Best regads, Ev 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Take no notice of me

I take it back, if I annoyed you. I should point out that I am a mere nobody around here, to say the least, and that my comments won't make the slightest difference to how the votes are counted. In fact, I am slightly surprised that anyone read them. qp10qp 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll bias

Over at the ATT poll, I've just flipped the order of the Oppose/Support sections, on the theory that it is heavily biasing the voting. I expect to be reverted within minutes. I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful. My theory is that if the vote is being biased by Support being at the top, it is only fair that they be inverted for the rest of the poll, and if this effect is not happening, the change will have no effect at all, ergo the only reason to revert it is to support bias in favor of Support votes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chalkidiki

Regarding this, the tag cannot remain there indefinitely until you get your own way. You'll have to start a WP:RM and if it fails, start another one or accept the outcome. If you want to move it to "Chalcidice", I won't object, in fact I'll support it. However, tags should remain on articles for as little as possible.--Domitius 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

isarco

I seem to get much more hits on Google for Isarco than Eisack. Icsunonove 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I posted mine as well. cheers. Icsunonove 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 52 hours due to a 3RR breach (^{rv1, rv2, rv3, and rv4)}. Please be more careful in the future. Many thanks in advance. El_C 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The third edit is not a reversion; and the fourth undoes Rarelibra's fifth exact reversion. See note below

Decline reason:

It was a 3RR violation, valid block — ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have expressed my willingness to undo this edit if it is counted againt the limit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting input from the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I get a chance to get an edit in... The same line ("The Venetian name Scutari was derived in antiquity...") was removed in all four instances, so that's a 3RR breach regardless of anything. While I welcome review, no admin should unblock without clearing it with me first. Thanks. El_C 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It has always been customary to revert the last edit of a 3RR violation, on the grounds that it should never have been made. As for "Venetian"; yes, I do dispute the propriety of that word, but I offered a novel alternative, which said neither "Venetian" nor "Italian"; the point at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is certain is that it has never been customary to violate 3RR to revert the last edit of another 3RR violator. It dosen't matter if you view it as "novel," you removed the same line four times. El_C 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you unblock me, I will revert myself.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, naturally you will. And Rarelibra would undo his 3RR-breaching edit if he could. The key with self-reverting is that it can only work before a block is issued. El_C 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked your opinion on the matter before the block was issued; the block was your only answer. You need merely have asked; I expected you to agree that the last edit (as undoing a violation) didn't count. As for Rarelibra: if he is content to undo his last two reversions, I am perfectly content to have him unblocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you asked me about it, then I missed it, because I would have asked you for diffs. El_C 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This was intended to elicit your opinion; perhaps I should have copied to your talk page, but it didn't occur to me. You were plainly watching this page. The diffs of Rarelibra's actions are on WP:AN3; I'll get them in a minute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not reading every exchange between you two; it was your responsibility to ensure that I read —and responded— to it. El_C 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This block should be reviewed on a timely basis and either endorsed, shortened, or unblocked, as the reviewing admin deems appropriate. I've unblocked this user in a prior 3RR situation so I don't think I should review it myself. I'm going to post to ANI, noting El C's request to be consulted. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rarelibra's diffs are here. To summarize: he made three exact reversions, edited the last of them, made a partial reversion, and then made two more exact reversions to the last edit he had made, all within ten hours. He was then blocked. I undid this fifth exact reversion, 15 hours after he was blocked for 3RR; I thought myself right to do so, but offered to revert myself if El C thought otherwise; and am still willing to revert myself. I had only made three edits all told, and believed one of them not a revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran War

I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Septentrionalis, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip (II) of France

Could you please take a look at the talk page for this article and also Talk:Philip of France (1116-1131). The history suggests that I created the talk page on April 2, 2007. I think that the talk page existed before then, and that I might have mucked something up a week ago. Is it possible that I had the edit talk page open, then moved the article page (with the talk page), and then saved the original talk page with my comment - thus making a mess of things? Noel S McFerran 20:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Elisabeth of Bavaria

I agree that we should try to reach consensus on a convention for naming consorts, male and female, of sovereigns and cadets, and I want to be helpful in moving that decision to completion. But I'm confused about the role of this vote in that process: If I vote on this name in isolation and without reference to what I understand to be the applicable naming convention, I don't want that vote to contribute to a precedent on what the naming convention should be because my vote won't reflect all relevant considerations -- I'm either treating it as a "one-off", or I'm applying the "most common name in English" convention, which necessarily yields a vote relevant only to the name in question. But if I vote on it based on all the applicable conventions, one of those is that monarchs' consorts revert to maiden name posthumously.

Another is that conventions are discussed and decided upon at the appropriate page so that the decision is informed by the rules and rationales layed out there. Procedurally, this !vote bothers me because it seems to affirm the rogue tendency to ignore or defy conventions put in place in good faith. That tendency has produced flagrant violations I think should be deprecated, such as Princess Astrid of Belgium, Archduchess of Austria-Este (over-long due to appending obscure title), Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover (use of Roman numeral for pretender), and Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany (attributes sovereign title to current pretender).

As it happens in this instance, I don't think Sissi has anything like the fame among readers in English that Marie Antoinette has -- ergo my opposition to treating her similarly. Given that I don't think there is, in English, an overwhelmingly popular and acceptable name (or "Sissi" would prevail), I think the next applicable convention should apply, i.e. use maiden style of deceased consort. If I'm to ignore the latter convention, I'm not sure why and I don't know what criteria you're suggesting I apply in voting? Lethiere 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why "Use maiden name posthumously" is in the guideline if it was never agreed upon. Nor why anyone would bother to contribute to a guideline if it is not intended to be prescriptive. Your opinion that I misunderstand and (presumably, therefore) misapply the guideline as prescriptive is not helpful because I don't understand the grounds for it. Nor do I respond well to what feel like peremptory opinions & instructions, when I have asked for rationales for any feedback given. Sorry I'm not being more helpful here -- I had hoped to be. Lethiere 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...

I would prefer it if you didn't use edit summaries such as these [10]. You haven't understood what I was trying to say apparently. And I would also prefer it if you didn't judge me so quickly. I just cannot see how, somehow, it could be claimed that the republican revolution of 1923 would be considered as establishing a "new state" rather than "régime change" - thus the "re-capture" argument. There is nothing wrong with discussing this, and nearly all sources out there agree that Turkey is the successor state of the OE, legally, functionally and morally. On historical hindsight, I have yet to see a modern third-party history book which refers to it otherwise. Therefore the "re-capture" argument. Please try to see the finer points of my comments. Thanks Baristarim 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

your vote

In case you didn't notice the main options are between historical fiction (history with fiction) and plain 'fiction' - which implies no connection to the real account. If you have read Herodotus as you claimed then you must be familiar with the "army of slaves", "led by the whip" versus "free men", "fight in the shade", "molon labe" and similar terminology he uses (most of which is being ignorantly criticised by many). I'm only contacting you because you justified your vote by having read Herotodus. The similarities the storyline has to Herotodus are also noted by various scholars (cited in the article), and it's been precisely the reason I find a purely "fiction" label as undue weigh. So I'm rather amazed by your remarks. Miskin 11:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, "based on Thermopylae" is certainly not synonymous to "fictional account of Thermopylae" that you voted for. I don't remember the Spartans advocating anything about democracy in the film. I remember about "free men", which is Herodotus' words, and "an age of freedom", which is directly linked to "free men" and is open to interpretations. It is by no means fictional. Miskin 16:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ATT compromise committee

Just FYI, over at the ATT comm. discussion talk page, names are being thrown into the hat for building a compromise working group. I nominated you for the "neutral" camp, as I thought you were one of the more articulate participants, who genuinely believes that compromise is possible. Without discussion this nomination has been reverted twice (while another has not), you've been shunted into a "reserve" pile, and someone (guess who) has moved a clear ATT supporter into the "neutral" section to pad it out. Thought you might have something to say about that. I'm so disgusted with the farce going on over there I'm probably just going to leave. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RS for Women Slaves in Islam

Hello, You gave the opinion that Arlandson is not a RS for Islam and reverted edits. Could you point specifically to what parts of Wiki policy you invoked to make that judgment? Please note that Arlandson has written not one, but many articles on Islam. Thanks, NN 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think there are some philosophical issues here. There is of course the academic community that cites its references. Then there are magazines and suchlike, where the style is more informal. I would say an opinion is magazines (especially ones like New York Times or Al Jazeera) are notable and as per Wiki policy belong to Wiki. The fact is that academic opinion treats Islam with kid gloves, hence it is even more important to have the other source (magazines and suchlike) represented. Again, Wiki policy does not make academic sources mandatory. Academic sources are okay, there are other sources that are okay too. NN 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Exploratory Committees"

You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:

Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC.

And please note this argument on the same talk page. Exploratory equals Candidate.

Best regards, Yellowdesk 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Help me out

Pam, can you help me with something? Go to Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 and state whether you think a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre belongs in the article about the Walther P22, the gun the shooter used. (Hope all is well with you). Griot 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Walter P22

Thanks for hanging in there on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles. If you have any trouble with CINEGroup, check out this incident report against him: CINEGroup Incident (archive). MiFeinberg 17:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

3rr? good luck

editing isn't 3rr, learn it. CINEGroup 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Althing(i)s considered

I just wanted to say my reply to your reply on Talk:Snorri_Sturluson is musing, not argument. It's certainly not enough for me to go adding -i to Althing (or Everything)... — OtherDave 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Baronets

No trouble at all. After seeing the PIRA vs. Scots feud flaring up again, I'm hoping to develop a mutually acceptable compromise, at least for this particular issue, before user conduct remedies start getting handed out (and it appears they're getting close).

I had to look up the trick with the anchors; see Help:Link#Section linking (anchors). Never had to use it before, but there's a first time for everything. Choess 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Vilnius Issue

I thought it best to inquire here rather than at talk (Where to now?), as some might think it OT. I'm curious what your position is regarding Cracow? When it has been suggested that the German, Krakau, would be historically correct, and a more appropriate designation during the time period that the city was under the Austrian partition, it has met great resistance from some quarters. What in your opinion might justify this position, as the Russian name, Vilna seems to be preferred by you? As for Kraków, why would "Cracow", no longer be the English usage description for the city? Interested in your viewpoint. Dr. Dan 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I place a new but related question concerning the correct name for Cracow on my talk page. Since you've "weighed in a little" on the subject earlier, I thought you might have a further opinion. Dr. Dan 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22 disputes continues

Hi Pam. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Will this nonsense ever end? Griot 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Pmanderson, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk

walther ad infinitum

No. The removal does not carry a taboo just because of who was doing it earlier. I am not reverting to "CINEGroup's version", I am reverting to my preferred version, and under my evaluation of the talk page discussion. Do not treat my editing as anything but my own editing. Talk:Walther P22 shows no consensus for the addition of the content and no consensus for the proposed compromise that you are trying to enforce. Without consensus for either of these content additions, the article reverts to the pre-incident state. That even appears to be the specific outcome of this discussion. It is the responsibility of those who would add content to gain consensus for that content if it is disputed. No such consensus has ever been mustered. The article must default to the pre-VT state. ··coelacan 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested as politely as possible that you not characterize my edits as acting in support of anyone's version except my own. I am editing the article as I see appropriate. For you to say "If you reverse my edit, done explicitly on the ground that CineGroup's revert war should not stand, then you do support him" is akin to some kind of joke from Wayne's World ("a sphincter says what?") I've stated my reasoning mulitple times now; my version is my version and I do not appreciate being smeared. I supported the block of CINEGroup, and I deleted his talk page to remove harassment, so I'll thank you to stop this association game immediately. As to mediation, I don't know yet, I think it's a little early to jump to that, but I'm not opposed to the very idea of it. I'll wait a while and how things progress. ··coelacan 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cantor

Hi. I responded to your comments on the Cantor talk page. --Tellerman

Hi again. I responded again to your comments. I won't leave a message here anymore if you don't want. Also, I think at this point we should be moving towards the best way to present the information rather than finding out what the real truth behind Cantor's background is. --Tellerman

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Walther and Glock

Pam--Thanks for your work on these articles. The gun culture crowd is relentless, but we put up a good fight. And I believe you're right, it is censorship on these people's part. I wish they would just come out and say they don't want the VT massacre in those articles because it reflects badly on gun regulatory laws in America. The real debate should be about whether the gun articles should be confined to narrow discussions of the guns' technical qualities. The articles, of course, should be more than that, since this is an enyclopedia, but we were debating idealogues, and that is nearly always a losing proposition. You're the best! Griot 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Griot

Cantor

Will you maintain the present version of Cantor? If so, are we done? 212.227.102.5

Ring (mathematics)

You may find this to be nitpicking, but I disagree with your latest changes to the article. "Non-unitary ring" should be "Not necessarily unitary ring" if you disagree with "pseudo-ring". Also, the change from sub-pseudo-ring to "subring" is in direct contradiction with the convention adopted within the article itself, since a "subring" is presumed unitary. I don't think it clarifies matters for readers to contradict the conventions adopted in the very article, out of a sense of fairness to people who disagree with the convention. Joeldl 04:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your latest version is fine. Joeldl 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bremen or Frankfurt?

Hello Pmanderson! I would like to ask for your reasons for changing the example of a major city in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation. Bremen is the only settlement (at least in Wikipedia) with that name, and therefore there is no need for disambiguation anyway, like the first sentence in the edited section says. I think Frankfurt instead was chosen as an example because there is Frankfurt am Main and Frankfurt an der Oder, but the major urban center (Frankfurt am Main) is reached directly under Frankfurt. Thanks for taking the time. Daranios 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for the fast reply. I still don't completely agree with your argumentation, as the first sentence of the Disambiguation paragraph says that no specifier is needed anyway when there is no other place with the same name, which is the case for Bremen. But the formulation seems to have been unclear, so I tried to improve it by taking Essen as yet another example. (Maybe Frankfurt is not the perfect example because of the discussion if it should Frankfurt (Oder) or something else.) I don't always have a knack for the clearest phrasings so maybe you want to have a look at it once more. I guess it is a convention for only a few cases anyway, as we don't have too many "major urban centres" in Germany, but still... Daranios 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. Aczel says that his mother was probably of Jewish descent; if so, she is likely to have been Jewish in Jewish law, hence so was Cantor himself. Thus we cannot say for certain that he was not Jewish in Jewish law. Do you imagine that you are only Jewish if your mother was a strictly orthodox Jew? That is not the case. If your mother or your grandmother or your great-grandmother was Jewish and you can prove it, then you are Jewish. See for example [11] and [12].--Newport 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look, the first site isn't a blog. As for the second site, reliable sources do not have to quote references; if they did, you'd get an infinite regression. But look at it this way; if Cantor's mother's mother was Jewish, and she may have been, then his mother was Jewish by Jewish law. Whether she was a practising Catholic is irrelevant; she would not lose her status in Jewish law. If she was Jewish, so was Cantor in Jewish law. It might be simpler to delete the phrase and just note that he was not a practising Jew. --Newport 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we have a source that she probably was of jewish descent. To assert therefore that Cantor certainly was not Jewish by Jewish law is to ignore this source. I have no intention of going around inserting into articles that people might be of jewish descent unless I have a source. However, as I say, the best thing is just to delete the phrase, which adds nothing to the discussion.--Newport 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DR summary

Currently, I am attempting to summarize each stance. Supporting opinions are not truly relevant yet. I think during the process there is a survey. Let's first agree on what each of our opinions is so we can isolate the disagreement. I notice you are counting support numbers. I do believe some supportive comments arose. You seem to ignore them. Lack of understanding of the priority scale is not appropriate at DR. You must understand my argument and I must understand yours. Please reread the priority scale so you will understand why he is being tagged. I will attempt to reedit without much extraneous stuff you added. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I seem not to understand your argument. If the following does not summarize your contention please reedit it and add it back: "Any group of individuals should be able by consensus be able to eliminate banners selectively from talk pages if in their collective opinion it does not belong regardless of their participation in the project. Unsure whether he believe a consensus could change the parameters of a banner template used by a project. (requesting clarification)" TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.S. There seems to be contention about my use of the title Director. If this is part of the DR let me know so we can clearly state both sides of this issue as well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me attempt to understand your argument. Do you support or oppose the following statements.

1. Any group of individuals should be able by consensus be able to eliminate banners used by a project selectively from talk pages if in their collective opinion it does not belong regardless of their participation in the project.
2. Any group of individuals should be able by consensus be able to change the parameters of a banner template used by a project selectively from talk pages if in their collective opinion it does not belong regardless of their participation in the project. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Is it your position that {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is harmful to talk pages in general or Jon Corzine's in particular?
2. Is it your position that the WP:CCC which governs articles applies to talk pages? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Addendum Is it your position that use of {{ChicagoWikiProject}} states a POV (in a way that controverts policy) such as

1. The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the subject.
2. The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the general reader.
3. The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the Chicago reader.
4. The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the general editor.
5. The subject's relationship to Chicago is or should be important to the Chicago editor. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My current understanding of your position includes the following (please confirm):

1. Consensus prevails even with respect to use of a project's banner template and without regard to membership in the project.
2. Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
3. Neutrality does not apply to talk pages.
4. Consensus applies to talk pages. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you state your position on which of the following are valid reasons for a project to attach a banner template to a talk page:

1. By virtue of their editorial interests and resources they are likely to be strong researchers capable of adding significantly to an article.
2. By virtue of their editorial interests and skills they are likely to be strong copy editors capable of refining an article.
3. By virtue of their editorial interests they are likely to be interested in vandalism fighting for an article.
4. By virtue of their editorial interests they want to monitor quality improvements for an article.
5. By virtue of the readership interests (related to their topic) they want to monitor and assist in quality improvements. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

None of these, as stated, especially against consensus. All of these are more claims to tag any article in Wikipedia. The only valid reason to use {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is if an article substantially relates to Chicago; and if it does, the tag may be added by agreement of any editors, "members" or not. Nick is probably right that it would be desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose, for example, a group of University of Chicago students decided they wanted to design bots to fight vandals on all alum pages tagged with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}, would this be a valid reason to tag an article? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be a stupid and mischeivous bot; and any tagging that did not declare its purpose would be disruptive editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And is this a real proposal, or a mere hypothetical? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any policy page that asserts the proper use or limitation of talk page banners. I have scanned Help:Advanced templates, Help:Template, Wikipedia:Talk page & Wikipedia:Banners. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

---

We are making progress on isolating our issues so far. Summary so far of discourse (Please confirm):

Agreed

1. POV issues not considered relevant to the matter at hand as POV not relevant for talk pages.
2. Use of the term Director not relevant
3. Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
4. Banner template usage is desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article.

Contentious

1. Consensus applies to talk pages (including banner templates)(PMAnderson). Consensus does not apply to talk pages (TonyTheTiger). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus applies double to talk pages! :-P. Anyone can put anything on a talk page, and anyone else can get rid of it if it's not helpful for whatever reason.

Hmm, Note that use of Wikipedia resources is not a concern for wikipedia editors (In part because it is somewhat counter-intuitive. Removing content from a page increases the amount of storage space needed for that page, for instance. Template behavior is downright weird). Editors should just work on making as good an encyclopedia as possible. The poor devs will figure out how to make sure that mediawiki keeps running ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still awaiting PMA's response, but to answer your question, I have never before seen cases (excluding vandalism) where it was considered proper to remove other editor's contributions to talk pages. In fact, I was under the impression that a talk page was where consenting, assenting, and dissenting opinions could all coexist. In a sense the opposite of consensus seems to exist in talk pages because all opinions are suppose to be recorded. For example, if one creates a survey on a talk page, after the debate concludes the majority is not suppose to erase all traces of minority opinion (if I understand talk pages correctly). WP:CON would imply that at the conclusion of a debate only records from one side remain. Please correct me if I am wrong. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, we do not recognize majorities. Hmm, also, talk pages certainly may be refactored --Kim Bruning 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link, but PMA are trying to engage in serious discussion. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I thank you, Kim. I am not sure any discussion on premises so far off base as Tony's can count as serious. ;} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that your best argument by condescention you've got.? I suppose you are attempting to avoid the question I am posing, but in case you missed it I will restate it below TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

---

RESTATEMENT OF DISPUTE PROGRESS AWAITING CONFIRMATION We are making progress on isolating our issues so far. Summary so far of discourse (Please confirm):

Agreed

1. POV issues not considered relevant to the matter at hand as POV not relevant for talk pages.
2. Use of the term Director not relevant
3. Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
4. Banner template usage is desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article.
5. The {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is not a harmful addition to talk pages.

Contentious

1. Consensus applies to talk pages (including banner templates)(PMAnderson). Consensus does not apply to talk pages (TonyTheTiger). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot about the "Proposed" tag! *blush* -- ChrisO 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saying hi!

Haven't seen you for a while! Cheers! // FrankB 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and naming conventions

Hiya Pmanderson, on balance, I agree with you on the NPOV policy content, but I think the issue of "synonyms" still merits additional attention, because you forwarded a rationale that may not be entirely consistent with a good-faith reading of other relevant guidelines. I feel the current version does not provide sufficient context and may introduce unintended potential for confusion.

I do agree with your underlying objectives as you stated them, however, so my main concern is that the modifications be able to withstand scrutiny should others feel the need to chime in on the issue. Regards. Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#NPOV_.26_naming_conventions. dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru

MailerDiablo deleted the article, but seems to have missed your userfication request. Rather than revert him completely (we can always merge the histories later if this is ready to move back to the mainspace), I've placed the text of the last revision at User:Pmanderson/Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru. Let me know on my talk page if you have any other needs related to this. Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

TFD on Template:European mathematicians

Template:European mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

re: badly designed, the box overrides text, at least on my IE computer. Fixed this I think... try again.

More seriously, this appears only on category pages, and should be systematically replaced by Category:European mathematicians or Category:European mathematicians by nationality.

• This is unclear... nothing wrong with an occasional nav box on related material. See Category:Middle Ages. Working as I do on the Commons categories, I can tell you there are quite a few. I think it a particularly good idea to cross-link siblings. See for example Naval ships of the United States where experimentally, we've even crosslinked the sub-cats at ninety degrees, and duplicate that on the commons. (Assuming the ultra-nationalist German clan hasn't been ripping things apart again! <g>) (Sample some others:{{catlst}} here -- a lot will be up cats for the poor customer-readers without benefit of anything but the default skin. Works nice on the commons in particular, where all those images impede navigation!)

• So I said to "Keep -- I fixed up Paul's complaints, and a fair sampling of these links shows it playing fairly pretty where it sits now. Further, If a project wants a tag like this on it's patrol, I have no objection. This one just needed some HTML TLC." // FrankB

• Sorry Paul, but I fixed this up in just a few minutes. It didn't have any margins whatever, so I'd hazard a guess someone is using Opera or Firefox, or is just an enthusiastic beginner and clueless. No shame that. Lot's of people never think to check in another browser, and I find using five isn't necessarily enough for some things.

• Anyhow, I made my own nom, and saw yours. At least that template is well employeed! The one I nom'd was all but unused, uncatted, and had a cryptic name to boot. And wrote out exactly one sentence with three wikilinks. Hardly a good use for templates! Just thought to say Hi and let you know about their new look-- who ever they are! <g>. Cheers! // FrankB 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SatyrBot and WP:WPChi

Hi! I replied to a concern of yours on the bot's current project page, but I suspect you may not have seen it. Specifically related to Juan Cole and (before that) University of Chicago alumni.

When a WikiProject asks me to run the bot to place banners on articles, it's my practice to get them to develop a list of categories that they want me to run through. I also make sure the list they come up with has categories that are at least 80% consistent with the project, knowing that this will result in a little bit of "over-tagging". In WP:WPChi's case, they came up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories. I don't always know the particular project and its scope well enough to tell the percentages, but I do try to go through it. In this case, I removed the railroads that were listed, since most of them had many other cities and towns involved.

I wanted to let you know a bit of my procedure because you've taken issue with the categories Category:University of Chicago alumni and Category:Northwestern University alumni. In retrospect, you may be correct about many of the alumni not having much to do with Chicago.

At this point in time, the bot is done with all the categories that were given to me. However, the project has asked that it do an occasional run-through of the categories to check for articles that have been recently added and don't yet have the banner. What I would ask is that you contact the project and make your concerns known. They're in the process of determining which categories should be in the periodic runs, so your input would be welcome.

I'm sorry if I didn't respond quickly enough - I was on a WikiBreak from April 27 to May 11th with very little Wikipedia access, so many comments slipped by me. Please accept my apologies.

Thanks, and hope that helps explain what the bot has been doing. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Let me first state that I am not calling you a racist. You could be darker skinned than me for all I know. However, your refusal to answer the following is very reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan bubble tests:

“ THIRD AND FINAL RESTATEMENT OF DISPUTE PROGRESS AWAITING CONFIRMATION

We are making progress on isolating our issues so far. Summary so far of discourse (Please confirm):

Agreed

1. POV issues not considered relevant to the matter at hand as POV not relevant for talk pages.
2. Use of the term Director not relevant
3. Banner template excess is contrary to conservation of wikipedia resources.
4. Banner template usage is desirable if the project members also intended to improve the article.
5. The {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is not a harmful addition to talk pages.

Contentious

1. Consensus applies to talk pages (including banner templates)(PMAnderson). Consensus does not apply to talk pages (TonyTheTiger).

”

If you are not familiar with such test, when black were first enfranchised it was not uncommon for the KKK to police the ballot boxes and require registered voters to pass some verification tests. They would make it clear that the tests would be "fair" and "democratic". Then they would asks black folks questions like how many bubbles in a bar of soap. Then if they got uppity about not getting a fair shake they might get lynched by a mob of KKKers, which was of course real fun for the good ole boys. Well in this case, it seems you are quite interested in a fair and democratic WP:DR and even have a veritable mob of people with opinions that may or may not be germane to the issue at hand. However, you refuse to address the issue at hand. If you are unwilling to make a statement about the above quote, I will view your DR willingness as a bubble test DR invitation. I will not be subject to such an invitation. The bot will be running with the alumni categories unless you are willing to make a clear statement about the quote above. You can inform the entire lynch mob of this fact. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. as an aside, here is an example of what a WP can do for an article that has little direct importance to it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll on Bratislava

Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell GA/R

I have nominated Bertrand Russell for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Medusa

Good catch on that link on Medusa -- I saw the perseus.tufts.edu link and thought it must be froma professor or something. You're right, it's just a student, and one using some pretty horrible sources too. DreamGuy 06:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab RFM

If you're not aware already, you need to follow a few procedures (i.e. e-mailing Daniel about something) in order to get the ball rolling on the request for mediation, since it apparently will be occurring on a private wiki. See #Decision of the Mediation Committee for more information. -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

reported to ANI

Hello, I have acted on LuciferMorgan's challenge to report his behavior to ANI. Arcfrk 08:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Measurement

On the basis of the discussion at WikiProject Council, I have been BOLD and set up WikiProject Measurement. I hope you are still interested and that you will join the discussion as to how to progress from here. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Calhoun

Well, one way or another, I would of not fixed the Calhoun thing correctly :/. Just in case there's some confusion, I didn't actually make the initial review to give the article GA status in the first place, I was just responsible for the increadibly long lists of bullet points at the bottom of that GA/R. I don't know if the article has really changed that much since that GA/R, some of the new parts of the lead do actually seem POV in favor of the confederacy. (Some terminology used to describe confederate battle strategy seems too flowery, I had the same criticism the first time late in the article when it was describing how the battles mostly panned out) I didn't know how bad the article may of had POV disputes, I didn't see much going on when I checked its history, but like I told the guy who fixed everything up, articles on topics like this require quite a bit of effort to ultimatly raise up to FA standard, having to deal with a broad topic plus having to deal with historical revisionists might be causing them problems. Homestarmy 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

God Hates Us All

The "over referencing" has been dealt with. M3tal H3ad 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hopefully this is the last time this has to be stated. GA/R is not a dumping ground for editors to drop their articles that are not up to GA standard so that others can do the work for them. It is not our responsibility, our duty, to make necessary changes to an article so that it meets criteria.

It is also unproductive for you to troll nominations with your derogatory comments and unjustifiable votes. You, obviously, are pissy about the review(s) of your article(s), and I feel for you. But incessantly harassing us is not going to make us fix any article(s) for you. We review articles. We don't overhaul them. Although, I have done so for many editors who have been both mature and respectful regarding the reviews of their articles; for those who show a genuine motivation to bring their articles to GA quality rather than those who just want the title so they can brag about it without actually bothering to do any of the work.

For the MASSIVE amount of time you spend complaining and jacking with our process, you could have had your article(s) up to FA standards by now, much less GA. I have had it with the accusations and sophomoric comments about my participation in the GA/R process. I know the criteria, trust. And I base my reviews off of them. My reviews are some of the most thorough reviews given for both GAC and GA/R. If you don't want to acknowledge and respect that, then so be it. But you will stop with the insulting comments, or this is going to administration. Refrain from contradicting all of my GA/R recommendations for the sake of being a dick. If you're not going to base your votes off of the criteria, but simply vote the opposite of me, and follow it with some worthless drivel, your votes will be stricken. LaraLove^T/_C 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Information

You are not basing your votes on WP:WIAGA. You are contradicting votes that call for an article to be delisted based on the failure of several different criteria. You justify these votes based on the lack of specification for a specific format for citing references, completely disregarding all of the other issues the articles have. You're acting like a little boy who isn't getting his way, pitching a fit in the grocery store because he can't have some candy! Your behavior in the GA/R process is shameful.

As for calling the reviewers evaluators to "get rid of the ambiguity", I don't see anything ambiguous about "reviewers". We review articles. We evaluate them. It's all the same thing. This is just another example of you causing problems where there are none. Frustrating those involved for the sake of being a dick.

And I don't care if you unnecessarily assumed that you had to achieve GA before applying for FA. That's not my concern, particularly considering I don't think you'd be able to do it. You seem to be completely incapable of accepting criticism, totally unwilling to cooperate with editors who attempt to help you improve your article, and embarrassingly disrespectful of others regarding their work on Wikipedia.

What I say to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Style and Form", is that it doesn't matter what it's called. You're whining about the process. Changing the name isn't going to change the process. Proof that you are either just rocking the boat, or you really have no idea what you're doing. LaraLove^T/_C 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can show me where it requires either ((tl|citeweb}} or the many-to-one style of footnotes, I will change my !votes accordingly.

WP:WIAGA#Notes, note 2 reads "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard referencing at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting."

Cite web is an easy way to achieve complete footnotes. When Harvard referencing is used, cite web is proper for consistency. Additionally, we don't require cite web, we recommend it. LaraLove^T/_C 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"WP:WIAGA does not require it; nor in fact does it recommend any means of inline citation."

• WP:WIAGA#Notes, note 2 reads "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard referencing at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting." --LaraLove^T/_C 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I honestly don't understand what you want. What are you talking about? It makes a recommendation and leads to essays that explain, in detail, how to do it. What more do you want? I offer to help those who need it. When I do GAC reviews, I do some for them so they can work off of them. I don't get how we can make it any easier. It's the internet, we can't hold editors hands. I suppose I could draw out the process on construction paper using some of my kid's crayons, but I really don't think these editors are as incapable of doing these things as you'd like to pretend they are. Let it go. You worry about your articles and let others worry about theirs. If these aren't issues that you specifically are having issues with, let it go. LaraLove^T/_C 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"In short, I would like GA to function tolerably. But what I want is to move GA to a name where sensible authors of good articles will feel free to ignore the lot of you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"

Noted. With that said, I'm taking this to WP:WQA. LaraLove^T/_C 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Stay off my talk page.

please respect poll results

hello there Pmanderson,

I reverted the move on Meran based on the poll results that were held Talk:Merano#Straw_Poll and the policy that was established to use the name of the majority-speak for the article of a place in South Tyrol, see Bolzano, which was not touched by me. I am asking you to respect poll results if a majority was established, even if it is not to one's liking. Please assume good faith and I hope we can cooperate on good terms. Sincerely Gryffindor 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Well I am glad we can talk instead of engaging in some edit-tit-for-tat. I hope this issue will not cause any trouble, however we had a poll with results, plus there is a guideline that we should use the majority-speak for place names in South Tyrol. Back then I was in favour for using double-names for all places in order to be fair to every language group and be most neutral, however that did not find a majority and I was pretty much left alone with that idea. Therefore it was changed despite my opposition to have only one name, to the one used by the majority of the population. So I accepted that policy in good faith, which is why I accepted Bolzano as well, something that stays under the guidelines and has not been changed by me. sincerely Gryffindor 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that the case was not cut-and-clear, but I thought that is why we had a poll, correct? Gryffindor 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the case was not clear, that is why we had a poll. I happen not to be the only one who thinks this, I am articulating what other users also thought about this move. What would your proposal be, to use the name that a minority of the population uses over the name of the majority? Gryffindor 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On Trentino and Tridentines

Indeed the Consensus page clearly states that Wiki isn't "a majoritarian democracy". But then, I find it odd that after the vote the same is contested as not "a process of 'testing' for consensus"; in this case, 5 out of 9 is a 55,5% majority - and I agree it's hardly a plebescite, however I believe it should be taken as indicative of something.

On the topic, I have to wonder exactly what's wrong about Trentino. As the Province itself declares here (last three odd lines), "Regarding the name Trentino, it is not possible to clearly indicate a precise date for the establishing of the use. After 1803 the term came to be used not only geographically, but (also - Trid.) as a social reality identifying the territory and its inhabitants". What I'm driving at is that Trentino isn't a mere administrative division, but more, primarily a coherent entity superseding that. A historical region would be perhaps the correct term, much like Friuli is an entity within Friuli-Venezia Giulia, and is both peculiar within, and older than it. That's what the hyphen is for: to mark that two realities are put under the same "cap", so to speak. I may add that this is even more the case of T-AA/ST, where the two provinces wield a level of power and autonomy much higher than any other province in Italy except Aosta (well, no surprise there).

And by the way, is the outrage caused by the fact that Trentino isn't used in English, or just for the sake of keeping the list of Italian provinces neat and tidy? Tridentinus 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just tried googling for Trent, results were: 1 - Trent University, Ontario; 2) a blog by some Trent; 3) Nottingham Trent University; 4) Trent Barton Bus Services; 5) Wikipedia's Trent Reznor page; 6) fnially, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the Council of Trent. Instead, Trento yields the entries for Trento city, and Trentino, followed immediately by the page in English maintained by the local university.

Maybe it's high time for me to add something to my user page: I'm writing from Trento, am an Italian speaker of Tridentine ancestry from as long as I can see (1489). This said, the Trento page could be moved to Trent anytime for me, and I wouldn't protest at all - it is the traditional English name. And in German it's Trient, by the way.

And I can see why 5 out of 9 isn't that impressive; but pretty please, then how is Wiki to make a decision, and who's to ratify it? (Edit to add: the crux is, how is this elusive consensus to be recognized?) Tridentinus 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I hope it won't be necessary to assure that I'm not an edit warrior! ;) However, supermajority should be tempered (IMHO) by the recognition that minor issues won't attract a large number of editors to the debate; it's not as if on the table there was the choice between, say, Britain and United Kingdom. The small scale of an issue may well paralyze any decision, forcing less prominent pages fundamentally top follow what the first editor chose (I'm talking generally here, I realize what's good about Province of Trento, mind).

And hey, I may lose the debate, but surely I can defend my position, right? :D Tridentinus 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is

Hi. The thing is that requiring me to redo the citations is basically me redoing the entire article, since I would have to revisit each single page from the sources. I am not even entirely opposed to doing this at some point, if need be (even though there is an explicit guideline somewhere that citations should not be modified by other users unless wrong or incomplete - presumably, this applies to asking someone to redo his citations); interestingly, I would not even have used that system of citations were it not for the fact that people tend to change the citations system I use in other articles to something more or less similar to the one in Sebastiani.

However, ever since this matter was first brought up, you will notice that some users have begun seeing "many" other "flaws" in the article, so I may just be changing the system for nothing. Dahn 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher FAR

Allow me to explain why I said they were accuracy problems as opposed to POV or OR problems. A number of editors who are pro-Thatcher (incorrectly) think I am an Irish republican, and would immediately scream "bad faith" had I said it was pure POV. If the entire section could be sourced from one source (ideally complete with some negativity for the sake of balance) I wouldn't necessarily have that much of a problem with the section, though I'm still not convinced about the existence of it. However as the information may well have been cobbled together from more than one source, it's problematic. But as I'm unaware of where the information came from, I thought it best just to go for the all-encompassing accuracy to be on the safe side, and let other editors add their own analysis. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't take it as a criticism so no problem. I personlly agree with your summary and would have made something similar myself, but I chose to take the path of least resistance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent short articles

Sure. Hey, elaborate on the MfD page and suggest a move! -- Rmrfstar 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Not guilty. Ednan 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA badness

I noticed at WP:RFA you vaguely referred to WP:GA as something that might contribute negatively with respect to adminship. Please explain because I do not see your point. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also curious as to the editors supporting IvoShandor that you don't trust. Are you talking about anyone from WP:NRHP? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• You were pretty much correct as to what I meant by my remarks - as we all know, RfA is not the place to open up these wider topics. This discussion, to which neither of us contributed, might help with the explaining, or not. Johnbod 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Gryffindor

best idea i've heard in quite some time. sign me up Icsunonove 07:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Meißen

What I meant is that "Munich" is not just a French or English spelling of "München", but a different name. It is clearly related to the German name, but it's a different word, and a different name. "nord" is not a different spelling of "north". The French can pronounce "Vienna", and it will sound similar to the English and the Italian pronunciations, but they choose to call it "Vienne", which is a different name (and it sounds different). Back to Meissen/Meißen: Meissen is another way to write Meißen, but not a different name IMO. But maybe we're getting into too much detail here. Markussep ^Talk 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I don't mind your having different opinions to mine, nor even your expressing them, but undoing changes made in good faith as "vandalism" [13] is going too far. I accept that the article almost certainly will be changed back eventually, but until then, there is no need to change the spelling. Furthermore, my edit made other, albeit subtle, changes, such as removing full stops from the ends of captions which are not full sentences. "Germanspeaking" is not a word, but your careless reversion has resulted in its renewed presence. Please think more carefully before making such sweeping changes and such bold and unfounded allegations in future. The move itself was being bold rather than an attempt to undermine consensus; vandalism it most certainly was not. --Stemonitis 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My warning

I'm sorry for that warning, I understand the situation now, and I will be more cautious when reverting pages. You may consider my warning as unwritten. Arienh4^(Talk) 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wheeler

Let me know if there are specific situations where I can help. For now, it looks like List of Republics etc. are under control. --Macrakis 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Peers deletion

I do not understand your nomination for the deletion of the Welsh peers artical. You have failed to notify the author of the page according to the guidelines, as well as comment in the discussion page for the artical. Already, I feel that we will need official mediation in this dispute, as I feel the merit of the artical rests with the fact that these titles are within the territorial geography of the consitutuent country of Wales. The artical states this clearly and does not propose to identify the ethnic origion of the title-holder. Please explain your reason for deletion more clearly. Drachenfyre 06:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Welsh Peers. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

== Sparta as a republic ==

Hi. A user has complained at the pump about unreasonable deletions of his addition of Sparta to the list of republics. Would it be appropriate to explain your reason on the talk page? Thanks. --Kevin Murray 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't see the topic Sparta at the talk page and didn't pick up that you have already addressed the issue. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Republics

It seems that we may have had a workable solution at Republics that could have been fine tuned rather than reverted. Is his point so far off that inclusion of Sparta with a disclaimer is unconscionable? I would say that the inclusion of "peoples republics" is a rather questionable stretch, so where is the harm? --Kevin Murray 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user is requesting that you discuss the issue at the article's talk page. This would be helpful, I think. Sancho 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sept

Your talkpage was vandalized, which helped me notice that it exceeds 320K! You may want to archive it one of these decades! :-) NikoSilver 13:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville

Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP blanking

Thanks for the encouragement. Unfortunately I've run into computer problems, so will only be able to edit sporadically, if at all, for the next week or so. I'll see how it goes, but feel free to start something yourself if you want. Carcharoth 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Curriculum vs curricula

Hello, I was wondering if you can take a look at recent edits/reverts at Calculus? At issue is the use of the term 'modern university curriculum', which some users want to change to 'modern university curricula' (presumably, because there is more than one university in existense). I believe that the idiom is 'university curriculum', but would like to know your opinion. Thanks, Arcfrk 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

I'm contemplating starting one for our Petrarch-loving friend, as you suggest, but I'm a bit put off by the tedium involved. The RfC process is time consuming, probably intentionally so. Maybe I'll just shepherd this round of prods/AfDs through and see what happens after that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

not "compute" please?

I just wanted to direct you to the dictionary definition of "compute," which is "to determine by calculation; reckon; calculate." So when you say "not calculate, please," and replace the word with "compute," what exactly do you mean (since the words are exactly synonymous)? --Cheeser1 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

what's the deal?

Okay, explain something to me. Someone in an article changes the word "curricula" to "curriculum." I fix it, and when people unnecessarily revert it and argue with me, I am the only one who provides an actual reason why the choice of the word curriculum is correct. This is confirmed by an administrator who is asked to intervene and resolve this issue. And now you step in and decide I'm pedantic? All I wanted was for the article to KEEP the CORRECT word, and I don't appreciate you re-instituting changes that were determined to be incorrect and unnecessary. Call me disruptive, but I'm the one who's trying to NOT change the article and the one whose position was determined by a third-party administrator to be correct. I expect you to revert it yourself. You've been nominated for adminship, and I would hope that you'd take the time to make more careful edits. And if you don't revert your edit, I'm going to fix it again myself in a few hours. --Cheeser1 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category: SF Fans

There has been another a call for discussion for the deletion of the Science Fiction fans category.Shsilver 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Res publica

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Res publica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. WHEELER 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

Firstly, I would have suggested leaving a note at Talk:Wolfhart Grote before leaving comments at ANI and asking sysops to review it, with respect this is uncivil as you have not bothered to reply. The Sunshine Man 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Weapon definition

Hello, as you may have noticed, I am involved in a bit of debate over the definition of weapon, and I was wondering (as you are a third-party in this all) if you could tell me if the OED includes a definition in its online version similar to the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, "1. a thing designed or used to cause physical harm or damage. 2. a means of gaining an advatage or defending yourself," or if it contains any other definitions similar to this one. Your help would be greatly appreciated.--LWF 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on other editors

I find your personal attacks on other editors quite obnoxious. Now you're trying to excuse them by pointing at me and saying that I sometimes say "fuck". What has that got to do with your personal attacks on other people? You can't go through life excusing every personal solecism of your own by pointing at someone else and saying "but he says the f-word." That's just a ridiculous non sequitur and doesn't justify your attacks in any way. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, friend

I have come here to apologise for my comments made during the incorrect AfD closes I made, I have realised now that I was the one not keeping cool and you were right, maybe AfD closing is not my thing. I behaved in an uncivil manner and for this friend, I apologise. I understand if you wish to ignore the message... The Sunshine Man 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism

I find the closing admin's statement utterly incomprehensible. Do you think I should take this to WP:DRV? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting solution, I hope it holds. The funny thing is, I'm half convinced that there could be a decent article on Petrarch's letter--but that would be a very different article than the one Doug wrote.

Anyway, I've been reluctant to start a user conduct RfC because of the time involved, but I've already devoted a lot of time to these AfDs and if I go through another I might have to start taking blood pressure medication. So I suppose I'll start an RfC sometime next week. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism(2)

• Thanks for your comments folks. Firstly yes - morass is a reasonably exact way of describing the content of AfD discussion, but you can be assured that I read through and noted all of the contents, including the multiple and convoluted arguments put by more than one of the contributors. I note for the record that my count of the !votes was very similar to that detailed above. Secondly (and I note with relief that you are both finding the answer to your own question) the job of AfD is to find a consensus - which in reality is a consensus to delete because merge, move, redirect !votes act towards a keep decision. On that basis alone there is no consensus to delete. Thirdly, I considered carefully the suggestions of name changes - particularly to Birth of Alpinism but even that suggestion did not reach an absolute consensus. Finally therefore the result must be (by the deletion guidelines) to reach no consensus which in effect at this stage must be keep. All of that said, Septentrionalis has reached the most sensible conclusion (which I also noted was related in the AfD) - to actually undertake a merge of the article with Petrarch. I say this because after that is done carefully and accurately - those of you who wish to put in a new AfD will have a very solid argument (and a position from which clear consensus to delete is likely to be formed) that the article Birthday of alpinism is no longer required.--VS ^talk 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthday of alpinism (3)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I have replied there. DuncanHill 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. There is clearly an ongoing debate about the article, and the admin who closed the AfD has been informed and asked for advice. DuncanHill 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to issues surrounding Birthday of alpinism

Firstly my apologies for not responding earlier - delayed because of current commitments in real life. (Copies of this message are posted on the pages of the relevant editors mentioned immediately above the original post on my talk page.) I have read all of the above and have looked at the history of changes at this page. I intend not to reply specifically to a couple of the editor versus editor comments - other than to note that, with respect, I agree with the comment made by Doug that all editors should cool down a little bit. In relation to the redirect to Mont Ventoux - in a nutshell I disagree for the simple reason that a redirect is not a merge. More specifically - the AfD resulted in a keep. I appreciate that some people did not like or agree with that decision but the deletion policy does not allow (nor should it) for administrators to act without a solid consensus to delete and such a consensus was not provided in the extremely long and straying comments provided in that AfD.
In further discussion with two editors I suggested that concerns might be addressed by merging, that is taking some or all of the content in this article, and placing it into Petrarch. I used Petrarch as my point of reference because it was that article that was strongly mentioned in the AfD. Whilst editors may have considered that suggestion and adjusted their thought process to redirection, I am a little perplexed at how any editor or group of editors could display a level of fairness to their wiki colleagues without first mentioning the idea of a redirect on the talk page for a few days before it is undertaken. Clearly that has not happened and now you are found again at loggerheads.
To my mind basic wiki guidelines and policy should immediately come into play. Firstly any editor can remove the content of any article that is not verified. From that perspective any such content on Birthday of alpinism should be and can be removed. Secondly, content that is verified within the article can be duplicated in another article where editors feel that it is better placed at that other article. To my mind civility of process should dictate some discussion on the talk page of Birthday of alpinism on these parts. Thirdly, if that process moves relevant content to other articles so that the article is no longer required it could be redirected (for the purpose of meeting search terms), or alternatively it could be deleted through a second AfD process.
Whilst I sincerely hope that you are all able to reach an amicable solution, it would be remiss of me not to note that if the process is unable to be completed in this way because someone or many take an ownership over the article that breaches WP:OWN and especially if WP:3RR is breached, please let me know directly and I will block editors or protect the article as necessary until the normal process of mature editing is completed.--VS ^talk 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Seek consensus" -> "obtain consensus"

You realise, I hope, that the next editor who undeletes a BLP without consensus will be desysopped? Your opposition to this obvious change of wording is surprising. If one seeks consensus for a controversial action and does not obtain it, performing it in any circumstances is disruption at the very least. In this circumstance it would be much, much worse. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is complaining about someone else not having consensus for controversial actions? WP:POT applies here. DreamGuy 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move Falun Gong to Falun Dafa

Hello, I understand that the request is already closed [14]. Yet I would still would like to make one point and to discuss it, if you wish.

I read the policies and:

• It’s true that using the name Falun Gong is not offensive.
• It is also true that the usage of the name Falun Gong is somewhat higher then the usage of the name Falun Dafa.

Still this does not change the fact that Falun Dafa is now the official name. Falun Gong should still, of course, redirect to Falun Dafa, and this will also reflect correctly the fact that the name has changed, and thus being, I believe, more correct and so more encyclopedic.

Thank You for your time and please let me know what do you think. --HappyInGeneral 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

• Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination).
• Potential canvassing: [15] [16] [17].

--Akhilleus (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Naval blockade of Germany in WWI

As you stated sorry; this is off-topic. The naval blockade has its own article. in your revert of my edit to Dolchstosslegende, you surely can point me to the English Wikipedia article that covers the Allied Naval blockade of Germany in WWI and its effects on civilians in Germany? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In the vernacular

You got that right.[18] Oh, and thanks for the good work. KP Botany 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

RM of Slovak Ore Mountains and Lesser Fatra

You recently participated in a requested move discussion at Talk:Greater Fatra and might be interested a similar situation at Talk:Slovak Ore Mountains and Talk:Lesser Fatra. These articles were previously moved to their Slovak names but I have reverted the moves and posted them at WP:RM to allow for discussion. —  AjaxSmack  05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Didn't mean to imply that you'd done anything wrong. I need to look through pages histories a bit more carefully, I guess. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

NCGN

I'm happy with the current version. If you can live with it, too, then thanks for your time and I can proceed to my wikiholidays :-) I apologize for reverting in the first place. --Lysy^talk 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "most notable places" does change the meaning, but it can stay as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for letting me know. --Lysy^talk 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your opinion on template:History of Manchuria. This is one particular place where outside opinions are much needed. I've been asking those editors(Jiejunkong, Wiki pokemon, Assault11) repeteadly to file a Request for Move for their preferred version to test consensus, but they continue to refuse to do so and just keep arguing on.

I have one thought on WP:NCGN. The problem with "Manchuria", as it is the main argument by the editors who dispute it, is that it is, in some reliable sources, described as a "historic region". Hence, they argue, that "Northeast China", which they argue is the widely accepted name in modern context, should be used. Under the assumption that what they argue is true - that Manchuria indeed violates WP:NCGN - my argument, and that of others such as user:Nlu, is that "Manchuria" is not as blatantly violative of WP:NCGN, and this is a case where we should practice common sense. Although "Manchuria" did not exist as a proper name before the 17th century, this term is by far the most widely accepted name for much of the contents, i.e. corresponding historical periods, of the template, including those historical periods that predate the existense of the word "Manchuria" by several centuries. Compared to "Northeast China" or "northeast China", usage of Manchuria for the corresponding historical periods is by far the most common name(383 to 21[19][20], 385 to 33[21][22], 92 to 15[23][24].

By common sense, it's pretty clear, I believe, that it is benefitial for the readers to present the most widely accepted name for the corresponding historical periods that this template represents. However, WP:NCGN limits historical usage to "places that no longer exists" or "when it held a different name". I'm not sure if Macnhuria qualifies for either of the two criteria, but if it doesn't, I think WP:NCGN should change, such as "when it is held by a different name, or widely known today by a different name for the corresponding historical periods, including those historical periods that precede the word's contemporary existence". I would like to have your thoughts on this, thank you. Cydevil38 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out one major problem concerning the usage of "Manchuria." Keep in mind that this is not a "historic region". I have repeatedly asked user:Cydevil38 for historical material confirming it as an official region recognized by the successive Chinese governments which administered the region (Qing Dynasty, Republic of China and the People's Republic of China) from 1635 - 2007 onwards. This is because Manchuria was originally created as an "ethnic concept," by Emperor Qing Taizong Huang Taiji. During the Qing Dynasty, the geographic name of this region was either the "Northeast" (Dongbei) or "Dongsansheng" (literally, "Eastern Three Provinces"). There has never been a so-called "historic region" called Manchuria. Assault11 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's a "historic region" in Chinese or not. This is what English speakers have always called it (the OED's first citation for Manchurian is from 1706), and still do. If some other name is appropriate for the Tang dynasty, it should, by WP:NCGN be explained, "Three Eastern Provinces (now Manchuria)". In any case, none of this is relevant to the template, which doesn't have room for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Hello, I've decided it's time to ask the Arbitration Committee to help out with the problems around articles such as List of republics, which you've been involved in editing or discussing. There's an opportunity for you to add your comment on whether the case should be heard by the ArbCom, and they'll decide if they want to take it up. --Nema Fakei 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock ISP

Andrew Cunningham

I have replied on the page about your comment. It would be helpful if you signed your post, it would make it easier for me to comment on your page. Let me make it clear that i did not intend for plagiarised text to have remained in the article, for the fact that it was may i apologise. I think i have now met your concerns, any more comments would be appreciated. Thankyou Woodym555 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I will look again and change the wording. Your suggestion about the archives i will remedy in a minute!. I agree that official writing can be laborious. I also appreciate that some editors can be slightly uncoperative and not open to reasoned explanation. I have to admit i was about to write on your talk page asking for the reasoning behind the excessively condescending and triumphalisitc tone of your comment. Your comments though have made it perfectly clear and i am grateful for your explanation. Thankyou for taking the time to review the article thoroughly!. Woodym555 23:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was perfectly happy to see the comparison there, it made it easier for me to see my mistake. My qualm would have been with your comments after but as i said earlier these are entirely acceptable the context in which they were given by you. No need to be sorry given the circumstances and it is always hard to translate meaning into text. Each reader is prone to personal interpretation and it is easy to misread and misinterpret text and let it take on a meaning that was not intended. Thanks again for taking the time and i wish you luck in your negotiations with the other editor. Woodym555 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(n.b. i suggest you archive your talk page, it seems incredibly long. You are a very busy person it would seem!) Happy editing Woodym555 23:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarco-Eisack

You said, "If someone finds countervailing evidence, please let me know; but Markussep's evidence supports this for now." Evidence found. Unfortunately it looks like we computed the numbers wrong. Their are a good 20,000 more Italian speakers along the river. We just listed villages, but didn't realize that most had but a thousand people, versus 100k+ for Bolzano (Bozen). I've put in a move request along with corresponding data. Icsunonove 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least give a weak support instead of a week oppose, considering the work I did to sharpen the numbers? :( I'm an engineer and trying to be rigorous in our application of the criteria. Icsunonove 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, up to you. I thought you might be able to agree with the numbers that show 20,000 more Italian speakers along the river. Markusseps' original calculations were wrong because each of the villages didn't have a multiplication of the percentages by the populations. Icsunonove 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to apply the criteria as it exists now, not that I really agree with it. If I had my dithers, everything would be Italian-German or Italian-Ladin dual naming. Maybe how villages are done now is ok in some ways, but certainly for mountains and rivers.. it is quite ridiculous that we had Etsch-Adige, Eisack-Isarco, and now Eisack, for large rivers in Italy. o_O Anyway, again, beside the point. In this case, I'm simply pointing out the way we evaluated our census data before was just plain incorrect; I've gone through and done the calculations correctly. cya Icsunonove 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Orion (mythology)

Is Mueller really a "crank-magnet"? Honestly, I'm not too familiar with his work, it's just something that turned up in my research. But the point he makes in that passage anyway seems kind of obvious, just that astronomical myth derived from constellation arrangements should be taken in a different vein from the stories of the giant walking on the waves to Chios. It seems like something that's more-or-less assumed but not clearly stated in the rest of the article.--Pharos 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jazz albums

Per WP:Albums#Categories I cannot place individual albums under free jazz. Instead, I must group them under artist and place them there. This whole problem stems from the fact that albums cannot be categorized correctly according to subgenre without the method that is employed in the example of Category:John Coltrane free jazz albums. If this merger occurs, albums will never be able to be categorized by subgenre. So a John Coltrane free jazz album will never be able to get categorized at Category:Free jazz albums, and Category:Free jazz albums will also be deleted. The whole point of this was to accurately categorize albums, something many users appear uninterested in. To some people, it's all "jazz". To people who actually know jazz, nothing could be further from the truth. I beg you to reconsider your position, as doing this will make proper categorization of albums impossible. (Mind meal 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

• I will try my best to not sound as if I am talking down to you, though it seems very few people as of yet have understood what I've been saying lately (the only other was someone from WP:JAZZ; funny, huh?). I created that Category:Free jazz albums, as well as every other subgenre at Category:Jazz albums by genre. In jazz, an album may be performed in a variety of subgenres, ie. Free jazz, bebop and hard bop (on an on). That is just an example. Now, as I said, individual albums cannot be placed at Category:Free jazz albums. Also, one cannot just place Category:John Coltrane albums at Category:Free jazz albums, becuse not every album by John Coltrane is free jazz. The only way a category like Category:Free jazz albums can even exist is if it is populated by categories like Category:John Coltrane free jazz albums. Does that make sense to you now? That category only exists, and only can exist, if we populate using the method proposed now for merger. In jazz, artists perform 98% of the time in more than one subgenre, and so it hardly ever will be the case that something like Category:John Coltrane albums could ever be placed in such a subgenre. This proposal will make it impossible to categorize albums by subgenre. I hope you see that now. Individual albums that do reside in the Category:Free jazz albums are actually there incorrectly, and should not appear there as they presently do (per guidelines at WP:Albums#Categories). Notice the example of Category:Slayer albums just so happens to accurately fall under Category:Thrash metal albums. For Slayer, that works. But what of Category:Paul McCartney classical albums? Surely we could not just place Category:Paul McCartney albums at Category:Classical albums, which is what you are supporting in a nutshell. That would be inaccurate categorization. Not all Paul McCartney albums are classical. We all know that. And so it is with jazz. (Mind meal 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

• I will try this again. WP:Albums#Categories states "For album articles, there are three "top-level" categories: Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by year and Category:Albums by genre. Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category." So an actual album can only go into Artist Name and Year. Okay? No album ever can be categorized into Category:Jazz albums. Only Artist albums can. (Mind meal 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

• As for Paul Macartney: no, I do not support making his albums a subcat of Cat:classical albums; what have I said that would support that? Liverpool Oratorio should really have Cat:Paul McCartney albums and Cat:Classical albums, just as it has Cat:Live albums; but I don't feel so strongly about it to put it up to CfD. You are now getting at the problem, as a Paul McCartney album cannot be placed directly into Category:Classical albums. This is a hole in the categorization scheme that I've lately been trying to address, to a silent audience. Do you now see a bit more as to why this categorization is necessary? (Mind meal 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• Sorry for trying to clarify something for you, as you didn't even understand the guidelines in place. How can a sound decision be made if the parties involved don't even know the guidelines that caused something to begin with? (Mind meal 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• Don't you think it is a good idea to get consensus before changing guidelines at WP:ALBUMS? (Mind meal 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I will leave you alone. But frankly you didn't understand the guidelines for albums, because you were thinking they should directly be placed into genre categories. I agree that its all very confusing. I thought the same way you did, until someone told me how the guidelines actually work. That isn't assuming anything, as you didn't understand the guidelines in place. Did I miss something? (Mind meal 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• There were many discussions that went into this. I learned on WP:ALBUMS talk page from other members that albums do not get placed into genres. That is the crux of the problem, and I'm not misinterpreting it as it stands. If Slayer made a classical album, it would have to still reside at Category:Slayer albums which is a subcategory of thrash metal albums. That is the problem. If musicians do crossover work, there currently is no way to categorize them appropriately. This problem is very big, and I'm not just making it up. Last message, unless something comes up that requires an answer. (Mind meal 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• We seem to agree on at least one thing: It isn't working. Here is the problem with categorizing albums by genre, though. When we do that nobody knows what they are clicking on. They don't know who made that album, so the category will just be filled with random titles with no context. That is why I proposed we rename all album titles to include artist name, which was also shut down. This was the only path I was told one can take, and now even this is not posssible. (Mind meal 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• If you are arrogant enough to tell me to stop talkign to you, then have the decency to restrain yourself from adding to my talk page also. (Mind meal 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

• "Mind meal, the current scheme for categorization as spelled out on this project page is for album articles to be categorized by musician/musical group and by year, but not by genre. Category:Hard bop albums should have few or no album articles. That way a browser will know who recorded an album as the album will be in that musician's or musical group's category. For example, Brazilia (album) should be in Category:John Coltrane albums (or Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums), not by itself in Category:Hard bop albums. This system works for the majority of albums. I admit that it has draw backs for musicians who record albums in a variety of genres and for over-analyzed genres, like jazz. -User:Acjelen 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)"

"Using categories such as Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums (Artist+Style+"albums") is a more sensible (and much less disruptive) approach to the problem you want to fix. Eventually, some artist categories would contain only subcategories. / User:edgarde 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)"

"I think your last point hit on the crux of the whole problem. It is as I have said before - the problem is not (necessarily) that the categorization is messed up, but that the current categorization is misused. If we create new cats then logically (and unfortunately) they will be misued as well. If the time we are spending discussing here we instead spent re-cat-ing those miscat-ed albums much of the prob would be solved. (User:Sampm 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) - this is in reference to categorizing albums directly into genres.

Again, you obviously did not read the discussions in their entirety to see things from a proper perspective. Thye absolute end to this discussion, no problem. (Mind meal 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Any guideline which requires "reading the discussions in their entirety" is broken and requires fixing. Guideline pages should be simple, clear and self-explanatory. As for your comment on the talk page: why, yes, you are seeing things: You are seeing a requirement which is not stated. One possible solution is to state it, and state the reason for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock shared IP

Unblock-auto Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You will need to provide the autoblock id, at least, for anyone to analyze the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; here's the full template; the page explaining these things is confusing:

Notes for myself

Marisha Pessl

• 37 Pablo Neruda, Twenty Love Songs' XVII
• 91 Shod = she/he/God
• 101 Hermin-Lewishon
• 136 Richard Neverovich Kill Me, Wanting It All, All at Once
• 190 Einstein, hefeweisen, skinny-dipping Lake Carnegie 0300
• 225 Blackbird Singing In the Dead Of Night
• 233
  • H. H. Hill, Napoleon's Progress
  • History is Power
  • Aashir Alhayed, Instigations of a Dystopia
  • Hank Powers, The Con Game
• 236 Respecting the Devil Hearst, 1984, p. 210 picture of Picasso
• Bulldog in a Henhouse: Life of James Cagney Still for Torrid Zone, p.339
• 347. James Harry The Tool-makers Grief of a chimpanzee.
• Grit, or Grit (novel)
• 407 Huntley, New Mexico, disappearance of Ester Sweeney
• 408 For the Love of Corinthian Leather (2003) fake death by crocodile
• 409William Stonely, Ash Complexions
• 486: Birds of Torment, chap.3 on Milli Vanilli
• 501: Jonas Ornata III '42, champion at goldfish swallowing
• 512: Slain by Winn, 1988. Hard-boiled.

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I ♥ Huckabees

Hello Septentrionalis. Sorry, I was out on holidays for the past week and didn't notice your comment in the last move proposal at Talk:I ♥ Huckabees. It's been closed now, but I thought that I should come here and say that although I think that you raised a good point (I should've thought about public computers), I still think that conforming the title to old browsers in old public computers (in detriment of Wikipedia's accuracy) would not be a good move. It's still not Wikipedia's fault. Some public computers at my faculty won't display Japanese fonts and I don't think that we should get rid of them just because of these eventual user limitations. Regards, Húsönd 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For your concise and integral addition of a greek meaning for the article Logos as well as your many other contributions to grecian topics, i present you with the rosetta barnstar award. thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent editing. Some thing 06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party

Pam, help me out. The discussion about how this party's name is used in history books has started all over again. Care to weigh in? Griot 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You're my best pal on Wikipedia. I suspect an edit war is brewing here, so if you could stay on it, I'd be doubly grateful. Griot 14:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Just FYI, it is you who appear (to me) to be the edit warrior on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). IPSOS (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Potential candidates"

You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:

Proposed deletion of "potential" categories from template.

Cheers, Italiavivi 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

..Georg Cantor

• Georg Cantor is now a Featured article candidate. I saw your name among the contributors... Ling.Nut 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stevewk and Edward Gibbon

Hi, Pmanderson. Just writing to let you know that it appears that after being blocked for edit warring, Stevewk has returned and is back to removing the book template from those four pages regarding Edward Gibbon. Should his account not have been blocked indefinitely after the vicious personal attacks and sockpuppetry he engaged in while blocked? Please let me know your opinion. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'll open up a new section with a link to the sockpuppet category for an admin's attention. Feel free to comment if you'd like to add anything. --ForbiddenWord 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pmanderson! I just wanted to let you know that Stevewk has reverted all your edits to those three articles he was sockpuppeteering on. His behavior seems indicative of a desire to carry on a slow edit war, so I alerted an administrator that responded to my request regarding him earlier. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

With regards to the Cunnignham FAC could you please check over the article again and then indicate whether you support or opposes it. I am currently trying to work out where the FAC stands, thanks. Woodym555 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Regarding which issue? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The thing is that there are often people who object to aspects of policies or guidelines. I object to some of them myself. But that doesn't mean we can go around adding a disputed tag. At some point we have to settle down and look to see what most good editors do, and then just stick with it for the sake of consistency. For example, I object to the guideline saying that there should be no space between the punctuation and ref tags. To my eyes, that looks bad, and so I argued against it for a while. But I'm in the minority, so I left it, and now I don't leave spaces, even though I'd prefer to do otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You should read both talk pages and the archives. There's a strong consensus in favor of the house style, because it reflects what the majority of publishers do. It's only Philip who keeps edit warring over it every few months. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to go deeper into the archives than that. He's been edit warring over this for a long time. It's probably best to discuss this on the talk page. Footnotes is probably best. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:

The source is Gevork Nazaryan, or http://www.Armenianhighland.com OTRS tag has confirmed it so I can use either one, but I will talk to the owner when he logs in, so I can ask him for the direct source. --Vonones 14:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I told you the source is Armenianhighland.com or Gevork Nazaryan. That is where the image is from, I will find the direct source soon, if there is. --Vonones 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay but YOU asked for the source. He has a PHD or something in history, I will find more information.--Vonones 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Source: Drei Jahrtausende Armenien, Burchard Brentjes, Verlag Koehler and Ameland, Leipzig, 1973 --Vonones 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Caption: Armenian King Mithridates of Commagene under the patronage of the Sky/War God Vahagn (associated with Orion). Relief from Hierothesion of Arsameia, 69-34 BC. --Vonones 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

Hi thanks for your note.

1. Any comment on SB's talk page does stop it.
2. Templates like mergeto should not be subst'd. See WP:SUBST for more details.

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 18:23 30 July 2007 (GMT).

Raglan and Hero

I'd like to discuss this with you here for a bit before moving it to the Hero talk page because that thing is a bloody mess. I agree that the Raglan citation (well, its a mention, not really a citation as there is no note) in the article is, at the very least, under the wrong heading. This had given me a good idea though. Raglan's work was very important to Heroic studies the errors of his and Frazer's logic were pointed out, so the Hero article should mention both of them at some point. However, I think that a small section that summarizes an article (that doesn't exist yet, I think) The Hero or The Hero (book). This article would contain a discussion of Raglan's theories, their impact, and the later criticism that caused them to fall out of fasion. The link to The Hero would appear in both the Hero article and the Lord Raglan article...thoughts? CaveatLector^Talk 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing though, Hero cult was originally an article, but it was horribly tiny, so I sought for and consensitized(?) a merger. Just FYI. Thanks for everything! CaveatLector^Talk 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move for "Palestinian people" to "Palestinians"

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "It is not clear that there is a place to discuss this." Wouldn't the place to discuss this be on Talk:Palestinian people? That's where it is being discussed right now. --GHcool 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly, but there already is a heading called "Requested move" in Talk:Palestinian people --GHcool 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed information

Somehow your recent addition to Elonka's RFA removed information, so I have reverted it. Please review the page history and figure out what went wrong. Andre (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pmanderson, I'll definitely get to work on answers to those questions, though I'm thinking that some direct communication might be easier? Do you use IMs, or would you like to perhaps meet in IRC to talk? --Elonka 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions answered, I hope to your satisfaction? If you'd like to know anything else, please let me know.  :) --Elonka 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahvaz

Can you look at Ahvaz article and Karun,The bridge is not on Shatt Al Arab. The image is for different river.Thanks--Aziz1005 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab picture

The picture on the Shatt al-Arab article is of the River Karoon, not the Shatt al-Arab. In the picture you can see the famous White Bridge in Ahwaz City. See [25] for other pictures of the bridge for proof.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 09:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For you

I wrote a little article for you, Scholartis Press, to show you my heart is in the right place, although I am probably doing awful things (unintentionally) to your article! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am stopping the copy edit as I am encountering resistance from one of the article's editors. I hope I have been of service so far. Good luck. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not that I did not expect to make mistakes, as in reality I knew nothing about the subject matter and just took wild, haphazard guesses (as I tried to make clear in my edit summaries.) I know in general what it takes to get an article through FAR, having taken several articles through the process. And my best copy editing is when I know nothing about the subject matter. Then I am approaching an article from the point of view of the so-called average reader that an FA article is supposed to be aimed toward. It is hard to have an open mind about necessary changes when it is one's own product. I understand that! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you now. I will stay out of it and keep my opinions to myself. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remove my changes

I put a huge amount of work into your article. I am tired of defending my changes and of your critical and unappreciative attitude toward my work. I am tired of your snide remarks about my copy edit. I also do not want to be responsible for the subsequent changes you are making as I value my copy editing reputation and you are returning the unacceptable punctuation etc. that I do not want ascribed to me. Please revert the article so my name is not associated with it. Alternatively, let the FAR editors know that you are dissatisfied with my copy edit and that you are making changes that go against FA standards.

This job has been a singularly unrewarding task and I wish to be disassociated from it. I have never previously dealt with such an unpleasant editor as you are. I did everything I could to be kind and open to you with only bad results. This was done as a favor to User:Salix alba who assured me that you were not the type of person that you are turning out to be. He has used up all his chips with me - no more favors for him! I would prefer that you revert the article back and get my name off of it. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps you could thank me for writing the Scholartis Press article which I did only to remove a red link in your article and attempt to get on your good side. (That certainly did not work!) If I could delete that article I would. I resent every contribution I made to your article.

Thanks!

(Scholartis Press) And I am sorry for what happened and apologise to you. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't let 'em get to you

I guess that this means that you've given up hope of ever becoming an admin, eh? Hey, I get just as pissed as you, maybe more. And there's been many a time that I could have used someone on my side (when I was fortunate enough to actually have someone on my side) tell me to turn down the attitude. I actually don't care what you do or what people think about you, but I would like, someday, to be able to turn around the stranglehold that the ß-pushers have on this project. And we'll need everyone we can get. But we draw attention away from the absurdity of their position when we let them drag us down into such behaviour. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool 04:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jamestown colonists

Thanks for reverting Christopher Newport to the previous consensus. Would you care to do the same at John Rolfe and John Smith of Jamestown? I could, but I don't want to look like I'm edit warring. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Contentious changes to WP:DATE

I suggest you stop adding instructions to the manual that are: 1) lacking consensus 2) presently being hotly disputed 3) liable to cause unwanted effects when mixed with the WP autofomatting funtion. Discuss this on the talk page for the manual where all can see, not on my talk page. Chris the speller 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to love giving suggestions. Try taking one: keep the discussion on the talk page for the manual, not on my talk page. Chris the speller 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My Appalling coment

Greeting, I was wondering if you could take a look at my response to the "appalling" edit that I made.Thanks, Balloonman 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother to look up my GA/R's but I did look up two quotes which pretty much explain my philosophy when it comes to GA/R's... I hope you give me a fair chance based on what my merits rather than your dislike for a specific process.Balloonman 07:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for pages where I have promoted or rejected an article to GA status, you are going to be hard pressed to find one. I think I've reviewed just a handful (like 2 or 3) articles total through GA before deciding that I didn't like that process. IMO, the GA process is broken---particuarly when it comes to promoting articles---thus I don't do GAC's myself. (You'll find some early on---but I wouldn't rely on them because by the time I knew what I was doing, I had stopped doing them.) I do like the GA/R process because it is a collaborative effort and I do get to see articles getting cleaned up significantly. Although I do believe that some people do look for FA quality rather than GA quality. Balloonman 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered your question and included quotes to demonstrate that the position I am taking is not one to gain your support (although if I got your support I'd appreciate it ;-) ), but things that I have publically said in the past.Balloonman 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Orion

It's very kind of you to ask me, but I am not going to be able to do it. I'm restricting myself to those articles where I may already have a little knowledge of the subject and maybe some books. But thanks for bringing this article to FAC: the process is very important. I do hope you get some useful reviews.qp10qp 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed it from the note you left qp10qp, in case you wondered. My real reason for leaving this note is to point out a series of edits I've made to give date context. I stopped around the point I added "1976" to one of the Károly Kerényi books, as I realised that this is a posthumous date for the publication of a translation of that book. Are you able to pinpoint the date when the ideas you mention were first published? That is what I am trying to get across - the history of the scholarship, from the late 19th century, through the early 20th century, and up to the later 20th century. Carcharoth 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Hamilton article. I also think it could benefit from some extra attention and/or reworking.

Out of curiosity: What did you mean by "TimeStyle"? I'm totally open to your change if it improves the article. I only phrased it in that way because Chernow is obviously only one of many Alexander Hamilton biographers, and not the official one, or even necessarily the definitive one.

Would "Noted Hamilton biographer" suit you?

Thoughts? GoldenMean 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol location

Now that South Tyrol has been moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, if you care, please add your opinion on the future of South Tyrol here: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Whither_South_Tyrol.3F. — AjaxSmack 00:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

William S. Hamilton

Hello. You seem to be pretty active in past discussion at Talk:Alexander Hamilton. I posted a question there at Talk:Alexander_Hamilton#William_S._Hamilton and I was wondering if you might take a look? IvoShandor 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

British Raj/India

You have recently discussed the name of the British Raj article at Talk:British Raj and might be interested in a move request there. — AjaxSmack 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Old friend, help me out again, will ya? I think I'm about to get a 3 day bounce for edits at the Ralph Nader article, where I'm trying to include the complete quote from an Atlantic magazine article: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president." Some Nader lovers object to the quote. Griot 00:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Val Passiria

Yes I know... the same old, boring conflict Italian vs German name, but I think in this case i have the Naming Conventions on my side. Maybe you're interested, Mai-Sachme 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In your tests you forgot the option Passeier valley [26] and [27]. It seems that Passeier valley is the most common name. Maybe you will reconsider your decision to vote Oppose. 212.171.128.42 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I just exchange Passeiertal with Passeier Valley? Mai-Sachme 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, but the discussion unsheathed that Passeier Valley seems to be more common than Passeiertal. So I decided to change the request according to this result. If this fact should change your voting, please amend it. Mai-Sachme 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

German streets and similar issues

I understand that this is frustrating for you. It's not that you're wrong (though I personally think the argument in opposition to yours is almost always stronger) it's that you've already lost the battle before it begins and even when you win a particular confrontation your're still inexorably losing the larger war - again, not because you're wrong but because the terrain is inherently against you. That must be annoying. Haukur 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

German language

Having seen you weigh in on several discussions at Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Val Passiria, and now at Wilhelmstraße, I get the impression you're somewhat opposed to the German language in general. May I ask why that is so? Or is it just me and I'm being vastly oversensitive? —AldeBaer 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. As you can see, I already revoked my opposing comment at Wilhelmstraße (please excuse my German spelling). —AldeBaer 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll vouch for Sep that he is completely neutral. :-) You can't pick him going either way. Don't be too oversensitive about it AldeBaer. You're the last person I want to see fall into that trap. cheers to you both, Icsunonove 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Trap? —AldeBaer 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is English/American slang to some extent. Just meaning not to get caught into being too oversensitive about such things. later, Icsunonove 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to propose moves for other articles, too? There must be dozens of titles with an ß which are normally spelt with ss in English sources. As just one example, Britannica spells Großglockner Grossglockner. —AldeBaer 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, wouldn't it be easier to have a centralised discussion about this on WP:NAME or WP:VP, so that all pages could simply be moved at once? —AldeBaer 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. —AldeBaer 12:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• your pals have returned to the PofB-B page. It's been delightful -- yeah, right. : -) Icsunonove 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me: I don't argue against spelling Wilhelmstraße as Wilhelmstrasse, or against the move. I do however argue strongly for accepting it as a simple commonplace misspelling in English sources, and for including the information that Wilhelmstraße is the correct spelling in the introduction of the article, preferably the very first sentence. —AldeBaer 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Swiss should be grateful in the first place for being allowed to acoustically abuse our beautiful language the way the do.</kidding> Kalifornien is the germanised German name for California (see also de:Eindeutschung), just like Nuremberg is the English name for Nürnberg, or Munich for München. Those examples may have started out as misspellings or maybe rather transcriptions, but they became established a long time ago. The only issue with Wilhelmstraße/Wilhelmstrasse is that it's not that frequently used and therefore is not as "officially" established as more prominent proper names. But I can agree to the notion that the Anglicised spelling would be "Wilhelmstrasse", and the references Elonka provided underline that. —AldeBaer 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your view on WP:MOSMAC

Hi Pmanderson, you were heavily involved in negotiating WP:MOSMAC. Here's a question to you. I thought that issue had been worked out, but when I tried to apply it on one article today (Arvanites), it turned out there still seems to be no consensus about what the guideline is supposed to be actually saying. Could you have a look at the article history and talk and give us your opinion? Somebody is apparently of the opinion MOSMAC mandates the use of "former Yugoslav" in all articles related to Greece, which I understand is a view you always saw as unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cracow

Hi Pmanderson;

You may want to take a peek at these: Free City of Cracow, Cracow Uprising, User talk:Charles#Kraków, User talk:Charles#Bone of contention (and at the editors' respective talk pages). I am astounded with the "reasoning" given and the very weak arguments in the edit histories of the pages, and also the hypocracy in calling for WP:RM of those who do the right, bold thing and move these articles to English titles. Charles 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pmanderson, thanks for the message. Without attacking the other editors, I can only say that I admit that I am having an incredible amount of difficult dealing with this affront to the intelligence of all English readers, myself and the blatant disregard for standards and conventions regarding the naming of this entity. Personally, I am appalled with the cheap arguments by the other side and am thoroughly disappointed that I gave the admin a chance by withdrawing my vote to have his administrative status revoked only to have this come up again. I was reassured by him that he had understood and acknowledged his bias (archives from May, June or July 2006 on my talk page, cannot remember which at this moment) and that it would not happen again. Oh well... The last comment on him for this post are the numerous RFCs, investigations, etc. Unreal.

That ties in to the other editors, who follow the same "arguments" and beliefs on the matter. They have the benefit of not being administrators as a lot more attention would be drawn to them. I can't believe I'm sort of ranting about this, but my "real" life is so busy and difficult as it is that I actually come here to relax, as no one will bother me when I'm sitting down and editing. I notified another editor of the issue for this reason, because I know that I cannot always contain my disapproval, although I feel I can simultaneously transcend it or at least push through it and try to show NPOV. I don't know if the other editor will get back to me soon, but at least I've tried to make note of what I'm at risk of doing and I want to avoid it. I will, however, not stand for things I find blatantly wrong or intellectually offensive. I make note that I have no problem what so ever about Poles or Germans calling Canada "Kanada". I just wish that this language was respected as much on its own Wikipedia.

I have no doubt that you are trying to keep everyone level headed. It is very much appreciated. I, however, succumb to my old Germanic roots from time to time and have a short, curt demeanor. Charles 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I will let the discussion (or whatever it is called in its current state) sit until at least tomorrow morning. However, I foresee no reason for the changing of the article in the event an editor does decide to use "Krakow" when there is an applicable note backed up by references in the EB. That, to me, would be common sense. Charles 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not helpful to say to them how I said it to you, but I do feel that it should be known. I have wilfully and truthfully made it known that I would not do on Polish Wikipedia (or any other) what is happening here. I think an understanding needs to be made that the language of the Wikipedia ought to be respected and that a Polish city having an English name is not an affront to Polish intelligence, culture or language. It is simply English and a way our language has always operated. I encourage languages to have their own forms of names, etc. Why can we not have ours, especially if the usage is overwhelming or substantial? That is the question I want to ask but feel will not be answered. I used the true story of being called Karl in German or Carlos in Spanish, among a number of other languages. It is not offensive to me and it is my own personal name, which is more sacred to an individual than a city name. On that note, I wonder why we need "permission" to call a historical entity in an English article by its English name. It all can be said and made known, it just needs to be said right. Charles 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure there is much I can do. Both names have valid arguments for them, and I feel I can only lose my temper if I see more of edits from editors whose only contribution on topic is to edit war for the name they prefer. The proper way to deal with that is RM, and the sooner it is done, the better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, both names are valid, but modern scholarship and WP:NCGN would prefer Kraków. I could abstain, but I am rather annoyed by disruption caused by users whose only contribution to the subject is forcing a name they are more familiar with, and whose primary method of arguing is a personal attack. Such "dumbing down" of articles is damaging to the project. Instead of warring about a name, we should expand the relevant articles. That's what I intend to do.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am (and I've always been) all in favour of using established English names here in en wiki. That's why I prefer Cracow to Krakow, Moscow to Moskva, Warsaw to Warszawa, and so on. The case of Cracow is a tad different, as it seems that in modern English the term "Krakow" seems to be gaining the upper hand. Europe is getting smaller and it seems that even the Brits start using local names rather than English names. Having said that, if I were to chose between Krakow and Cracow I would chose the latter. However, what convinced me is that the voting in question is not between Krakow and Cracow, but between having all those articles under a single consistent name, or having them under a variety of names. Consistency is the key that always convinces me. //Halibutt 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, you're wrong. Wikipedia is not consistent and the location of one or more articles at names using Krakow isn't an impediment to correctly naming other articles, except in the minds of those who have an agenda or those who mistakenly think things must be wholly consistent. If that were indeed the case, I'm sure there are more historical articles dealing Cracow than there are articles dealing with modern Krakow. Charles 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that consistency is the only way to go. For that reason we refer to New York as such regardless of the historical context (even if the true contemporary name was Nieuw Amsterdam). Of course, as a last resort we could come up with some new Gdansk/Danzig agreement, but I doubt it is the best option.

Besides, accusations of having an agenda won't convince me to change my mind, you know. //Halibutt 09:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with what you just said is that it is false. We have articles on New Amsterdam and New York City. Charles 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record: when Kraków prevails, we can, and will, go over to it; one of the signs of its prevalence will be that mere English-speakers, like myself, will not find it odd in this context. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I know Charles said this, but every so often he's right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

your message

funny that when i look up the rules of the Commons, there is nothing that says use "native" language, especially for multilingual areas. Icsunonove 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

(Your wrote)

Where I come from, "compromises" usually involve everybody getting something. So what are you prepared to offer Charles and Matthead? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be assured that resolving this matter is also my intention. Meanwhile, Charles went on an editing spree again slashing and burning like there was no tomorrow, so I’m not sure what you expect of me. If you intend to help, don’t ask “what am I prepared to offer” to Charles, because he’s not at all concerned with what I think. The first step in conflict resolution according to Roger Fisher and William Ury (Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, New York: Penguin Books, 1983) is to reject positional bargaining. Principled negotiation is the only way of reaching agreement. The principles are 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a variety of options before settling on an agreement; and 4) insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria. Let us try to generate that “variety of options” first and see if you can get Charles to acknowledge that he’s attacked me personally with his silly finger, his accusations, insinuations, etc.[28] From what I see though he's not in the mood for concessions and I’m curious to learn if you are? --Poeticbent talk 16:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What I expect

• I expect you, Charles, and Matthead all to be civil.
• I expect you to try to behave better than Matthead; not a difficult requirement.
  • And getting easier all the time; please ignore his baiting about the Grand Duchy of Cracow and leave it alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I hope you will abide by the objective standards on which we have already decided; but I am not sure whether I can expect this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I believe in WP:NCGN standards. I also believe in 1RR policy with all those who care to be civil. --Poeticbent talk 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent the hypocrisy of your expectations (reasonable expectations, but you are utterly unapologetic for your own behaviour), which you are not living up to yourself here on Wikipedia. Furthermore and with regard to your comments in the section above this one (Meanwhile, Charles went on an editing spree again slashing and burning like there was no tomorrow, so I’m not sure what you expect of me. If you intend to help, don’t ask “what am I prepared to offer” to Charles, because he’s not at all concerned with what I think.), I take that to be incredibly rude and awfully mean-spirited. As for this: Let us try to generate that “variety of options” first and see if you can get Charles to acknowledge that he’s attacked me personally with his silly finger, his accusations, insinuations, etc.[29] From what I see though he's not in the mood for concessions and I’m curious to learn if you are?.You refuse to acknowledge your uncivil behaviour to other users, so why should other users extend you that courtesy and essentially falsely admit to attacking you in order to placate you?

Have you not read this page? Have you not read that I am trying to be as civil as I can in the face of an affront to so many principles and conventions of the English Wikipedia? Maybe if you could truthfully acknowledge those faults of yours that we could come to a resolution of the matter. Charles 03:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol

hello there Pmanderson, after the conflict about Trentino and Merano I decided to leave the topics alone since it was not making anyone happy. You once voted and showed interest on the topic of South Tyrol. To my dismay I see myself forced to act in this matter again since certain users can't seem to give the whole thing a rest, pushing for vote after vote until they get the results they want. I am calling for that last vote to be annulled or at least extended so that more can vote and the result be representative. You can drop me a message if you would like or maybe share them on the talk page? I am interested in hearing your thoughts. sincerely Gryffindor 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor

Is at it again. I think it is time for the long needed RfC and investigation of his abuses. Icsunonove 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• RfC on Rarelibra and Gryffindor would be something good and long delayed Icsunonove 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

House of Brunswick-Lunenburg

Hi Pmanderson, can you take a look at this? I am trying to find the proper designations for these dukes. Thanks! Charles 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply! Yes, I know, I've already made note of Wikipedia's stance on the spelling on the page listing the descendants ;) I know it would come up! ;) If anything comes up later and you feel you can add to it, let me know, or post directly to the page. Charles 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I need all the luck I can get, especially since I'm part Irish, and you know how their luck is. Lol. It's not too bad, I suppose, I am taking some interesting classes: The Renaissance, Classical Rome, History of Contemporary India (1707-present), History of Traditional China, and U.S. Documentaries of China. Plenty of work there to keep me busy and unfortunately away from wikipedia and editing Augustus' article. So far I have fixed one of the mistakes you pointed out in the intro, but that's a mere shaving off of the cake, so to speak.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, I am unsure of how I am supposed to represent it down in the reference section. Should I keep Karl Galinsky's name first before the published year? Or should I just take his name out and cite the two authors of the articles I used from the Cambridge book? I am confused.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I understand what to do now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Hi Pmanderson,

Let me just start out by saying that my edits were not meant as a personal affront to you. I just want to improve the article, and I did so by removing editorializations, adding cn tags, and removing unsourced or demonstrably innacurate info. I am somewhat hurt that since I went to such great pains to cite and back up my changes, and keep them uncontreversial, that you would simply blank my changes, and call them 'censorship', which they clearly are not. Please, let's keep this civil. I just want to improve the quality of the article. We need to keep it so that it is more of a summary of the best secondary sources (in this case, mostly the authoritative bios). I will leave info about the specific changes on the Alexander Hamilton talk page, that way we can get more info. Let's just keep everything firmly grounded on the consensus of secondary sources.

GoldenMean 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't start an edit war, please. I have explained why I made changes, and you are reverting them wholesale. Please take care not to violate the 3 Revert Rule. I would like to hear others' input. I can't let something that is demonstrably false stand. And again, if you disagree with a change, deal with that change, stop the wholesale reverting.

GoldenMean 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil, and on topic. This section is for Newburgh, not the Gazette. As I already wrote, Chernow pp. 176-180 actually does not support your claim that he was involved IN ANY WAY with the Newburgh Conspiracy. Please see the AH talk page, I have laid it out. I check all my sources before I edit. Also, again, please don't blank me. I took great care in balancing, substantiating, and explaining those edits based on hard evidence. The section you keep reverting (along with a blanking of all MY substantiated edits) at the very least needs to be rewritten for the sake of accuracy and clarity. Right now it is simply incorrect, and has a typo to boot, so stop reverting to it. GoldenMean 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I already wrote this elsewhere, but in case you missed it: specifically concerning the Religion section: if that JSTOR article I can't access (but again--I am completely serious that I take your word for it) supports all the cn tags, PLEASE take the cn tags out. It was unclear that that one footnote at the end summarized the entire paragraph since there was no introduction to that paragraph summary. Also, again, I think there is some misunderstanding concerning the move of this info. I never removed the info, it was duplicated almost verbatim in the death section, so I took the extra info from the religion section, and added it to the existing description of the communion/last rights situation. IT ISN'T GONE. It is in the Duel/Death section. Always was. Was before me. Was there in BOTH locations before me. I don't care which section it is in. I thought it would a good idea to keep it in the Duel/Death section because the linear, nuts-and-bolts description seemed to fit better there than in the Religion section. It seemed to me a mention that it was important to Hamilton to receive Christian last rights was better the more sensible way to go. If you want to switch the two sections (detailed description in 'religion' and brief mention in 'duel': go for it. I don't care. It's not a dealbreaker at all. What is unacceptable was your wholesale reverts of my well-sourced, clear revisions, which covered several topics and issues, including adding citations to existing cn tags, fixing typos, etc. Please just focus on the actual content issues with me, keep the ad hominem stuff out, and you will see that we just both want to create a better quality, properly and accurately-sourced article. GoldenMean 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that he was willing to receive last rites from a Presbyterian belongs in the Religion section; it's trivia at the death scene, but the fact that he was willing to be ecumenical in his last moments speaks to the nature of his religion after the conversion.
• Of course Adair et al. supports the entire paragraph; that's why there's only one footnote; and the second time I restored it I expanded the footnote to say so explicitly.
• Similarly, both American National Biography (and Wills) support that Hamilton, like Gouverneur Morris and others, was involved in the Newburgh conspiracy. I never said he was at;; Newburgh; he wasn't.
• If you are acting in good faith, please restore the source information you found. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered that you 'reported' me for 3rr, for which I think you owe an apology due to the fact that it was you who was blanking my work THOUROUGHLY regardless of whether it was something you specifically disagreed with or not. As I said before, I will happily remove the cn tags for the religion if it is all supported by that one footnote, but it needs to be introduced as such IN THE ARTICLE as such--I will do both. Newburgh is another matter, the preponderance of the historical evidence and of the judgements of biographers and historians (at least from the current mainstream material I have read) would not support your addition of Hamilton as a Newburgh conspiritor in any sense of the word regardless of his geographical location (he was in Philadelphia), it would contradict it. For more specifics I would have to refer you to the longer statement I already made on the subject. Short version: he opposed the the Newburgh conspiracy as you defined it in your addition to the article. On that matter YOU have to clarify your accusation. As is, it implies Hamilton endorsed a coup, which--I'm sorry--he most certainly did NOT. Just rewrite it to be more clear about what Hamilton did, or put the quotes in a better context. GoldenMean 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the religion info around. I don't have a preference about in which section it should go. If you want to make another change, fantastic. Substantiate it, and write it clearly. Again, the communion stuff was in both sections before. You are wrong about the blanking. Again, you blanked everything of mine over and over. I'm glad you stopped. It's more constructive this way. Take care. GoldenMean 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify your material. I would REALLY appreciate attention to the 'Newburgh' section by anyone who would consider their knowledge of Hamilton or early American history 'decent' or higher--including (believe it or not) you.

Since you seem to enjoy American History as much as I do, you may find the following letters interesting and/or helpful. They are the April 4, 1783 letter of Washington you quote indirectly about "playing" with the army comments (the 'incendiary' part is actually a slight misquote by your source)[to Washington - April 4, 1783 Letter to Hamilton], and the two letters (sent simultaneously) from Hamilton to which Washington's April 4th letter was a response. Hamilton sent Washington a letter on (March) 25th which introduced and enclosed another writing on the situation of the unpaid soldiers/Newburgh Conspiracy [25th Correspondence from Hamilton to Washington (Click on the first result--it won't link directly](The second, attached letter Hamilton mentions in his first letter can be read by clicking the hyperlinked 1 on the web page containing Hamilton's first letter--it says how on the webpage).

I wish you would read these sources, not to add original research to the article, but just to ground this situation/your addition to the article currently states in reality/context.

Where I am coming from: Every book I have ever read on the period mentioning Hamilton essentially seems to agree that Hamilton's willingness to let Congress believe the soldiers were closer to armed insurrection as a means getting them their back pay was a bad idea. Further, they seem to agree that Washington thought it was important to keep even a bluff of a military uprising out of the whole situation, and told Hamilton of this (much to Washington's credit). But they also generally agree (and Hamilton states this clearly in his correspondence) that Hamilton was working against the actual threat of armed uprising, and that both men wanted to get the soldiers some form of back pay without violence.

As I say, I don't have your American Biography Dictionary, or access to JSTOR, so I have no idea what those sources say, or what the context of your quotes are. Just, please, please read those primary sources, review Chernow or any other significant, relatively up-do-date bios (of which Hamilton is the PRIMARY subject) and see if you think that section is still accurate and its statements in proper context as the article now stands.

Finally, I REALLY would like to get other peoples' input on this paragraph's accuracy. ANYTHING. This has gotten way too personal. If anyone else reading this has access to these books, or access to JSTOR, take a whack at the section, only good can come from it. I am going to stay out of this article, except to label it as disputed just so that more people will have a look the Newburgh section, contribute based on reliable sources and historical consensus. Sorry for the long response. Thanks for reading. Good luck.

GoldenMean 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PmAnderson, FYI I put a factual accuracy tag on the Conspiracy section. This is not personal. The section is already MUCH clarified and improved. Thank you for that. However, the tag is necessary I think to get fresh eyes on the section. The section still needs other independent (such as they can be) editors to take a look at it, fact check it, and tweak it.

BTW: I have, of course, read Chernow's biography (or as you know it: his hagiography), but it isn't the only bio or other material about him I have read by a long shot, nor is it inaccurate, Chernow is sourced up the wazoo, and pretty evenhanded (and critical) of his subjects. I love early American stuff, and you do too. Just, please, in the future keep it civil. Be more open. I will try to communicate better as well, and to explain and argue for edits more completely. I am however still offended at your initial lack of good faith, your calling me a censor, saying I don't provide sources (when I did), etc. A lot of this could have been obviated by sticking to the issues of content, rather than (BOTH OF US)stubbornly sticking to our guns, and budging only after a firestorm. Anyway, just leave that tag up for a while, see what happens, and I'll be happy. It can only help improve the section. Thanks for the (belated) good faith effort.

GoldenMean 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

National Gazette

On a more positive note, thank you for taking an interest in the National Gazette article. I appreciate it, especially since I spent a lot of time sprucing it up recently. I thought I had it as "anti-Federalist" not "Anti-Federalist"--thanks for catching that. It is difficult to decide what to call the Jeffersonian party in articles dealing with this era, especially since the Jeffersonian camp was still growing into its identity as a full-fledged party at the time of the Gazette. GoldenMean 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of it. The name for the Democratic Republicans is kind of a free-for-all early on. If you want to talk any more about that, though, please start a new section. Thanks, though. GoldenMean 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're Invited!

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Alenxander Hamilton

Is everything okay at the Hamilton article? It isn't clear to me whether the hagiographer was thwarted. Let me know if I can still help. Griot 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia I say to you too. I am not trying to change the English language. I think you should accept that not everyone has the same opinion. If something has a certain name in English, my view is that it should have that name in English, and not some other name only for certain circumstances. What that name or spelling would be is not that important to me, as long as Wikipedia use the same term consistantly. -Ulla 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on RMs

You might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves relating to recent comments you have made. — AjaxSmack 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Krakow

Hello, my statement to Poeticbent about WP:OWN was meant to steer the discussion in the right direction, not to indict him. If I had wanted to do that, there are others that I believe deserved it more. I realize the discussion for the requested move isn't going that well, but I don't think taking it to WP:AE are the best solution. I would appreciate it if you at least removed my diff from your statement. Appleseed (Talk) 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for Poeticbent, and I hope you will join him in de-escalating this conflict. My earlier message to Charles was fruitless, so I'm counting on the two of you. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The only mention of Auschwitz that I could find on the talk page was made by Matthead. Is there another? Appleseed (Talk) 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

As you commented on the first FAC of Cunningham would you be so kind as to comment on the restarted nom. Thankyou in advance. Woodym555 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

inappropriately placed comment

I'm afraid your comment under question 10 was inappropriately placed in the questions for the candidate section, which is not the discussion section. I moved your comment to the talk page [30] [31] to prevent disruption. Regards, —AldeBaer 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilmhelmstrasse (I hope I spelt that right)

To reply to your comment on my talk page:

I did indeed review the arguments on the talk page before closing. They did not look very much like ILIKEIT. I suggest that you consider boldly moving the page to the english spelling, and then placing the {{foreignchar}} template at the top of the page. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Expedition of 1018

Exactly. Perhaps you could say so on article's talk page? PS. I cannot read Russian, and I couldn't find anything in English sources I have access to that wasn't included in the Polish source I used.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilno vs Krakau

You may be interested in Talk:Kraków#Wilno_but_not_Krakau. It would be nice to reach consensus on when Kraków vs Cracow and Wilno vs Vilnius can be used. Oh, and do note Kraków is now at FAC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have missed my question here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

instead of

Thanks, that was a good edit to the proposal. Tony 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PM, as you're probably aware, the singular they clause has been inserted, removed, inserted, removed, and has caused heated argument on the proposal talk page, in which I've largely not participated. I don't know what to do about this, although I'm reserving the option of removing it when push comes to shove.

At this stage, I'm wondering whether the changes made, including my reinstatement of your "Please consider ..." might encourage you to move to a position of not objecting (even if you don't actively support). Tony 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dual names

Seems like I post often on your page recently :) In any case, what do you think of Oscypek/Oštiepok or Králický Sněžník - Śnieżnik?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

City names, etc.

(You wrote)

Would you be prepared to offer a compromise on the naming of the city and related issues; that is, I repeat, a deal in which everybody gets something? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I appreciate you desire to reach a compromise above and beyond what has been a subject of discussion for three and a half years in Wikipedia, almost from the day the article on Kraków was first saved in this project. I consider the issue to be out of my hands, and am not willing to elude myself with the thought of having more say than everybody else. To rename an article is easy. An attempt at renaming Kraków to Cracow was already made once, long before I joined this project. It was reverted almost instantaneously according to its History. However, the writing of the actual content is far more difficult and I hope that our agreement with regards to what is an AF article in terms of quality won’t be far behind. --Poeticbent talk 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 10:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL proposal

I think that under the circumstances, your insertion into MOS is good. The wording may need a slight tweak (without substantive change in meaning). Tony 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And I like your more recent alterations to the text. Tony 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC?

I fail to see how that would help, actually. >Radiant< 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it's quite interesting. Tony is (1) intent on having the MOS suggest GNL, (2) revert warring away every suggestion that the MOS may have exceptions, and (3) attacking everybody who disagrees with him. It's getting rather tendentious up there. >Radiant< 13:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Greeks

The fact is that you changed a whole section, which existed in this way for so long and was accepted, in a way that pleases you. It's not the point. In addition, this is an encyclopedia and an expression like "not the poet" does not seem proper. Fallmerayer is totally connected with this section and his theory is very famous. We should mention it. - Sthenel 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter if we agree with Fallmerayer or not his theory is so popular that it should be mentioned along with the criticism on it. Trying to hide it is not neutral. We don't criticise him and his works but we add whole this thing as a fact and this is what an encyclopedia is. Coon's theory about the races was rejected, it doesn't mean that none of his (other) theories deserve to be mentioned. So, you can add any information you like but please don't make a whole section, mirror of your beliefs. In order to avoid the edit war, leave it as it was, add your info and if you don't agree with some points, say it in the talk page to give the chance to other people to share their opinions and decide all together. - Sthenel 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK but first please revert all these. I didn't write this section. Many wikipedians worked on it and nobody has the right to change extensively such an important section for the article without any discussion. - Sthenel 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree too

I agree with Tony above that, under the circumstances, your insertion today was best. And I suggest that we defend it, despite (or because) we're on opposite sides of the ledger. No specifics. "Please try to use..." and that's it. We can revisit it in two months, when it's cool. Or, you might say, "do nothing because people are annoyed." That's a solution that continues to beg the problem—we (or some other group) will just be arguing about it again a year from now. We need something. Marskell 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still perfectly free to value X criterion ahead of Y criterion. By itself, I would not view masculine usage as a reason to oppose an FA. Or maybe I would—if someone were [or is it 'was'?—singular they alert!] being stupid about things. The phrasing can always be avoided—that's the main fact. But few responsive nominators are going to be so lazy as to take care of everything else and then sullenly demand the use of he for indeterminate gender. We're talking about something that's generally hypothetical—at the end of the day, most everbody in (relatively) formal English register uses GNL in 2007, on Wiki, or anywhere else. (Even if you claim you don't, and even if you claim some grand controversy is involved.)

So ya, if you find yourself typing "Oppose, not GNL" you should stop short, because you're being robotic. But if your next thought is "it's really easy to avoid the masculine, if you do this and that", then you're fine. And then you think "I'll suggest as much, next time I'm asked". Easy. Don't say he if there's a chance it might be a she. It's so simple that I wonder why so many obviously intelligent people have spent time arguing. Marskell 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's singular they (syntactically) and subjunctive (in terms of mood), no? Although I must say that the term 'subjunctive' makes me cringe, given memories of French class. Marskell 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is not a good idea at the moment, among others because there is a substantial group of users that treat the MOS as hard policy, and will therefore treat this as hard policy regardless of how it's worded. >Radiant< 08:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, buddy, I haven't tuned out the conversation. I just need to step back from it because it's just not healthy to get so angry at people I don't even know. I get very heated about language, I'm an aspiring linguist, and I want to defend it as much as possible. Maybe in a little bit I will contribute to the discussion again, but honestly...I can't deal with jerks for very long...Stanselmdoc 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk talk

Thanks for your note. It's my own fault, partly. "Do not feed the ..." One of the users appears to be the reincarnation of a user with strict ArbCom sanctions over his head[32] and a bad attitude towards negotiating.[33] I'm reviewing the matter in further depth and we'll see what develops. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cute new sig

Oh dear, is that true? User:Rspeer (ɹəədsɹ ) and some others have special characters in their sigs, so I thought it could do no harm. Do you by any chance know whether the IPA letters can be substituted with HTML character references?

Anyway, thanks for the note. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, which parts of my user page do you mean? I self-reverted the change to my welcome page after your note, but I'd be glad to make necessary changes to my user page as well if you could point them out. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, you're right. Should've checked through IE at once. in Rspeer's sig only the upside down r is displayed as a box. — [ aldebaer ] 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Democracy

Hey, you read my page! "to the extent of the difference", that's good. I have that quote from some book review. Just now I remember another quote I've been desperately trying to attribute. I vaguely remember reading it in some interview in Der Spiegel, it goes somthing like "the largest evolutionary leap lies within mankind" (i.e. not from chimp to man). I've been googling off my finger tips, but couldn't determine the Shakespeare that said those words. Oh well, might as well include them in my trivia section. — [ aldebaer ] 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, sorry for the redundancy of linking to Infinite monkey theorem. — [ aldebaer ] 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Red-faced + notwithstanding clause

...there is no plurality about it at all. Ack, of course there isn't—I just thought there was because I posted while drinking beer (it's User:Hoary's fault) and because I've been talking about 'singular they' so much that I'm seeing it where it doesn't exist. ("She were" is neither 'singualar' nor 'they', on third glance, but I intuitively think of plural with 'were'.) But do note: 'someone + they' constructions are grammatical English, as well; looking around just makes me more convinced. The singular they is on, dude.

Now then, These stylistic choices, however, are editorial judgment; they should not be used to discriminate between articles is a notwithstanding clause, which would render the entire MoS irrelevant. If a debate comes up on article:talk, editors will simply say "there aren't any real rules, because it's been made clear that we can ignore them when we want to." Not good for Wikipedia. I know you've bickered with Tony, but Tony is right about one thing: if we only emphasize the caveats, we might as well slap a speedy delete tag on the MoS. If it's the rules plus "but, but, but, but...", then there's no point in having rules. It'll be all about the 'buts.' So we don't need to have a MoS at all, you might say? Then we'll need to invent a MoS.

What I woud like is that people view the MoS in the way that they view good guidelines, more generally. WP:LEAD (a part of the MoS, afaik) is a generally respected guideline, for example. I might not abide by every specific on it, but I follow what it suggests and I'll direct other users to it. That's basically what the MoS (any MoS) should do: this is good; this is generally respected; this is in keeping with the linguistic norm; if you want to break from this, you must explain why.

So yes, if the MoS suggests "use gender neutral language" and you aren't doing so, you need to tell me why. If you have a fair linguistic reason, fine. If we work out on the talk that a given discipline or a given article type should break from the MoS, fine—but the MoS is the basic reference point. That's all I want from the MoS—a reference point. Spiking it with "ignore it, you like" language runs counter to that goal. Marskell 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)