User talk:Wareh

Archives 2006-2007 2008-2009

Bugnuts

I don't suppose someone could lose his WP account just for being bug____ crazy. But is he actually trying to introduce this, um, stuff on WP pages? RandomCritic (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorica ad Alexandrum

I've replied on my page - more importantly though, do you know an electronic copy on the web? I was trying to find one, but no luck. Wikidea 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Videri

An energy quickly depleted — but restored (at least a little) by your thoughtful words. If the restructuring holds, I will probably just adopt a section or two. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusement

[1] I thought you (and possibly Akhilleus) might enjoy this one... Kafka Liz (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GA icon

(supposing you were who left me the message at es:user talk:manuelt15) sorrry but hat edit is legitim, here they approved the use of icons to identificate GA in this Wiki and it's interwikis, and that article on es: is a legitim GA, so please revert your edit --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)PD:feel free to reply here or my talk page here

In this case, the symbol constitutes a recommendation of content with major WP:OR problems, so WP:IAR would easily justify keeping it off of the individual page Pederasty in ancient Greece, even if there were a policy to use these icons. I appreciate your suggestion that the matter has been discussed somewhere, but

• (A) In fact the discussion you link does not seem to have considered the issue of interwiki icons at all (it was in search of a consensus whether to display the icon on a good article itself). The words "foreign" or "interwiki" do not occur in the discussion or vote, and it is dubious whether e.g. the point "GAN is now pretty rigorous" would have been as persuasive if it had said "GAN here and in all of the sister Wikipedias is now pretty rigorous."
• (B) Even if this discussion had explicitly decided on favoring the icon for the interwiki sidebar (which it did not), I am skeptical about whether that consensus would in fact bind anyone as Wikipedia policy. Wareh (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Red and blue links

Thanks for restoring this. When I deleted the claim, it was on the basis of no apparent mention anywhere in the body of the text. But the link supports the claim, which is good news, editorially speaking! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Contra principia negantem disputari non potest

Thanks for the quick research on Contra principia negantem disputari non potest. Any idea why most of the sources seem to be in German or Russian? Just an artifact of the coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar, or was the phrase used much more in German and Russian traditions than in English? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll see what "quick research" it was from how my best answers are only guesses. See my response at the article's talk page. Wareh (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:CSLEmperorRiverbank.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CSLEmperorRiverbank.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

new Dude

Hi Stranger! There's a new Dude in town. You ought to lay out a welcome mat. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to see new contributors with ambitions--thanks. Wareh (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle#Ethnocentric

Thanks for you suggested reading; I added material, and will probably add more. My approach to the classic philosophers is psychological and evolutionary. It notes that what is missing from the philosophical formula is "sense." Aristotle appears to have introduced it in the form of observation, as he is given credit for the invention of the Scientific Model, but ethnocentric/racism issues tell me that he may not have been capable of this kind of open thought because of his bias; only fully functioning humans are.--John Bessa (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You raise some interesting questions, and I'm so glad I helped you find some reading that will let you add a different perspective that can be fully attributed to a reliable source. In comparison to your comments at Talk:Aristotle, I do believe that, while indeed many of the springs of human behavior are universal, others really do differ across time and space. This is one of the things that makes history and anthropology interesting to me. Of course, this does not mean that the historical (and human) phenomena have not often been given wrong names, divided in the wrong way, or (as you suggest in this case) conflated for specious and wrong reasons. Wareh (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Cool

You are a model of decorum, Wareh. (Apologies if that "Mr." should be "Ms," but I'm quite sincere.) It would be indecorous of me to point out why at this moment I should want to salute that. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just not as cut out for the heat of battle as you may be! And it seems you're parrying contentious outbursts on every side at the moment. So, we each fight on for reason as we can... Wareh (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to edit a weekly publication that covered politics and reviews of local theatre and (by far scariest) restaurants. We're talkin' libel lawyers, white supremacists alleging unbalanced reporting, and pimps complaining our sales reps weren't treating their thinly veiled sex ads with due respect. Much more fun, but an experience resulting in overdeveloped high-horse muscles, as I often demonstrate to my regret. I glanced at one talk page you were on recently (that prompted my initial note), and dropped my shield and ran like Archilochus. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Divine Comedy Reading

I did'n want to spam. I added the link the 2.nd time after dialogue with helpdesk, as you can check. Anyway, now I add a discussion at the "Divine Comedy" item discussion. To not seem I just want only some personal promotion, I hope someone else check the quality of the work and judge it worth a mention in the "Divine Comedy" link. I am aware of Wiki conditions, so I added the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 to my page. Iacopovettori (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, no one at the help desk advised you that it would be appropriate to link to your own website from an article, but I don't dispute your good intentions. The article talk page, where you've taken this now, is the right place for consideration of the external link by editors unaffiliated with the material. Since you want this material in the commons, also note that if it becomes included in commons:Category:The Divine Comedy, it will be available to readers of Divine Comedy though the link to that category. Best, Wareh (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank for your suggestions. By the way, I looked at commons:Category:The Divine Comedy, but i found I cannot upload mp3. Moreover, the work consists in 100 files of 6/7MB each, so it will be a huge work convert the format and upload them. I would like that you consider that my recordings was not something that evrerybody could easily to do for personal promotion: they represent a professional work of more than 500 hours in total. Only few famous professionals actors can claim they did such a work. The existing free recording has not the same quality of mine (every italian can easy check this). The page I linked do not contains any advertising, and i used my name in the link just to state that I am the reader. For these reason I don't agree with the charge of "add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". I am open to prepare a dedicated page on my site (for example, without my image and without the menu used through all the web site) to meet the requirements that you and other editors could accept. Best, Iacopovettori (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I only have one canto of the Commedia committed to memory myself, so I can certainly appreciate the labor that must have gone into performing and recording it all. I am not technically knowledgeable about how audio recordings can be put into the Wikimedia commons. I was assuming they can, and I hope you will be able to get some advice (try the commons:Help desk) that makes it seem more feasible than you now believe. I have not attempted to decide whether the link is "advertising or inappropriate" & will leave that decision to experienced neutral editors. The relevant policy here is simply that (to quote the standard template I put on your talk page), "Inappropriate links include... links to web sites with which you are affiliated." If the link is deemed appropriate by a consensus of unaffiliated editors, then it stays. I hope the value of your link will be determined fairly; I'm not presuming it deserves to be excluded. Unfortunately I probably won't be able to assist with the review myself. Wareh (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has discussed the problem at Talk:Divine_Comedy#Reading_of_Divine_Comedy, and I made a sober page in English, maybe he (or she) will consider it ok. You can check if you agree with these variations. Anyway, many thank for your suggestions. Iacopovettori (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that your link has been added by Radagast3, who is a good and experienced editor in this area. I hope you won't take the wrong way my insistence that an unaffiliated editor vet the site. I'm heartened to see Radagast3 thinks it appropriate to list (even in a very long and overburdened list of external links), and I hope I'll soon be able to hear your work. Your desire to contribute something better and new to the public domain is admirable. Wareh (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your intent, also I care that Wikipedia mantains an high standard of quality. My insisting was originated by the awareness that the work I proposed is not easy to do, so I was convinced that its value would be appreciated by other Wikipedia users. Best Iacopovettori (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle

Hello. Responding to your message: You compare and contrast two edits, one where I questioned a revert (a tag removal) and one where I put in material without sourcing. I'd question that approach because I am not on any focused campaign, and I try to judge each edit on its own merits according to whether it is an improvement or not. Adding material without sourcing is often an improvement that can be easily fixed, and I am certainly not one for wanting to tag every sentence. So I did not add those tags about Aristotle's vital dates, and I do not feel strongly about them. On the other hand I feel that removing someone's tag asking for a source is a "stronger" act that just adding material without a tag, and so I felt it worth questioning such an edit. It is obvious that they do not come under WP:CK. Actually, you'll know as well as I do that most birth and death dates from those times are just traditional guesses, if that. I think that ideally, apart from naming a source, the dates should be given as approximate? On the other hand, the edit of mine which you point to, as you must surely know, can easily be sourced. I'll do so. Please note if you had tagged those passages, I would not have deleted your tags. Aristotle's words are not common knowledge of course, but I do not claim they are. (However people who know something about him will tend to know which comments can be easily sourced.) I leave it to you to decide what to do with the dates, but they are neither common knowledge, nor undisputed accurately known facts within the field which is how they are currently presented.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your citation of CK triggered my reaction because I felt it to be technically wrong. I did not know you as an author, but I have this page on my watchlist and it was a routine reaction to such an explanation. But I did think about it. As I am sure you know, 90% of such cases are unfortunately dubious. So anyway presumably you will say that this exposes my ignorance, but happily I am quite interested: how do we know the exact year of Aristotle's birth? I can think of many important people born much more recently where we have no certainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I take it you are not sure who the original authority was? That's a shame as I was interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So there are multiple classical sources who give the same birth and death year? Interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But it looks like a very useful note, even if not necessary. It adds a fact to the article about the historiography of Aristotle - we could do with more such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

I've opened up the talk page twice, and closed it without leaving a comment. So 'twas a rather hypocritical shaming. When I said I still didn't understand exactly why this was proving so contentious, let me be sure to say it wasn't because of your description of it, but rather what I encountered on the talk page. Thanks for the welcome back! I made a not very serious promise to myself to stay off talk pages, but while I've already violated that on user talk pages, it's one reason I'm trying to stay out of article talk. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and yet I've gone ahead and entered the discussion. Wondering whether the violent headache I have at the moment isn't an alarm going off: don't go there, don't go there. It's just that I really don't see the problem on most of these pages, if we stick to explaining what is instead of trying to control too much of the content. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your kind words were spoke too soon. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoken! I mean spoken! That was a typo! Following this aorist thing slightly, I'm glad you may be willing to make some kind of statement. Your calm is needed, and I think/hope you can contribute a few words and then gracefully leave it at that. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am feeling quite graceless in this connection, but the "leaving it at that" part is sounding very desirable, and I hope it is an achievable desire. Since I play the part of the inveterate philologist, I'll add that "spoke" suits me as typo or as English (OED A.4.δ gives warrant from Donne, Goldsmith, Scott, and Samuel R. Maitland, 1844). Wareh (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would you be interested in participating in Mediation? I must ask first, since MedCom requires that all who are invited accept, or the effort will be scrapped.

The Hegelian pedantry involved in the insistence that linguistic universals exist, apparently in a deeper sense that actual observables, and that "pluperfect tense" is meaningless when we all know what it means - and as far as I can tell, there is no other word for it - leaves little hope for ordinary discussion; but a good mediator will suppress the nonsense while not permitting claims of incivility to derail the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While I am deep in regret for ever having attempted to contribute to that non-discussion (and am withdrawing from it), I will gladly (if concisely) contribute a description of some of the things that made it feel needlessly discouraging to me personally. I have not participated in mediation before: if on the other hand it means I'm supposed to adjudicate a lot of charges and claims back and forth, I don't have that in me. Wareh (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we would be asking somebody else, hitherto uninvolved, to mediate. Cynwolfe points out that it will be difficult to find a mediator with the experience of MedCom or MedCabal who has anywhere near enough background to follow the discussion, so this may be a while; but if we take that road, I'll invite you to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II. (Re. your comments above, I'm not asking you to get involved in a debate, just to mention any particular points that you may object to, and then to withdraw again if you wish to.) — kwami (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cup of tea and bourbon biscuit": I thought these looked nice, and something nice needed to be here. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy notice, but this does not tempt me back onto that talk page. "Are there any factual claims in dispute?" Yes, that version of the article is an inaccurate and unsatisfying account in many ways ("The aorist is a perfective aspect" is not defensible with its context and antecedents; the erroneous footnote to p. 141 of Johanson's article both fails to support it, period, and fails to reflect that discussion's atmosphere of debate, not agreement, over the aorist's nature). So is the Maunus-restored version unsatisfactory, and, of course, so are many Wikipedia pages. I just don't see a path to improvement and nuance. I don't mean to belittle the efforts of contributors who have been working, but we are missing the kind of humility, respect, and trust that could possibly let us conserve what is of value in each other's understanding. The most competent linguists have well understood that Ancient Greek aspectotemporal phenomena are messy and even baffling; efforts to account for them properly are always going to be unsatisfying to everyone (and linguists who care about testing their theories against actual linguistic usage draw sobering lessons from this: as Aristotle says, "with a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false one the facts soon clash"). At the moment I am teaching a narrative author in Greek, whose wide use of the imperfect indicative to narrate the course of action violates on its face many rationalistic assumptions about aspectual categories. And yet, humble and careful work can partially satisfy us with hypotheses that conserve the value of aspectual definitions. I can easily (!) imagine a Wikipedia article on these aspectotemporal phenomena that did justice to the complexity of the subject -- we have plenty of other articles that cheerfully and neutrally canvass different definitions and explanations, and then add clarifying gems of subsections to present the best-informed approaches to the contradictions -- but it will not be cobbled together from linguistic scholarship findable in Google Books. Wareh (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Puvedorj

Because I haven't seen it; I'm not even sure from the discussion whether it's on or off Wikipedia. Can you supply a link or a reference? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Found in the wilds of the talk page. It will not exactly fit, but this should go in the same direction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wilds, indeed - and I didn't make them any more navigable when I wrote Puvedorj for Purevdorj! Wareh (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wareh, It is most frustrating that you removed the external link, in that this website is completely NON-commercial. The illustrations are NOT for sale and there is no option to buy anything. The works have been exhibited in ONLY non-commercial venues, including the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Temple University, Rome, The University of Notre Dame Special Collections Library - Dever's Program in Dante Studies (Dante after Dore,) National Academy of Design, NY, Palazzo Casali - Sponsored by the Commune di Cortona, Italy etc. The images are included in the image gallery of Columbia University's Digital Dante site and selected pieces have been part of the Cambridge Music Festival Cambridge, England and televised by PBS Religion & Ethic Newsweekly during an interview with former Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky. My work is recommended by the Dante Society of America. There are other living people represented on Wikipedia, and I am not listing a spam sight. I have ties with Academia as I am a part-time university lecturer for Butler University and Indiana University. I am building this website [Inspired by Dante] with more translations and commentary. Students, world wide write me to ask questions regarding the Commedia. If you could assist me in how I might appropriately share this work, I would appreciate your advise as you are obviously very involved with the Dante article. Thank you in advance. Jennifer Strange (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance Please

Dear Wareh, It is most frustrating that you removed the external link, in that this website is completely NON-commercial. The illustrations are NOT for sale and there is no option to buy anything. The works have been exhibited in ONLY non-commercial venues, including the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Temple University, Rome, The University of Notre Dame Special Collections Library - Dever's Program in Dante Studies (Dante after Dore,) National Academy of Design, NY, Palazzo Casali - Sponsored by the Commune di Cortona, Italy etc. The images are included in the image gallery of Columbia University's Digital Dante site and selected pieces have been part of the Cambridge Music Festival Cambridge, England and televised by PBS Religion & Ethic Newsweekly during an interview with former Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky. My work is recommended by the Dante Society of America. There are other living people represented on Wikipedia, and I am not listing a spam sight. I have ties with Academia as I am a part-time university lecturer for Butler University and Indiana University. I am building this website [Inspired by Dante] with more translations and commentary. Students, world wide write me to ask questions regarding the Commedia. If you could assist me in how I might appropriately share this work, I would appreciate your advise as you are obviously very involved with the Dante article. Thank you in advance. Jennifer Strange (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on italic titles

Hi, Wareh. I think you participated in the style discussion over italicizing article titles when they consisted of titles that would normally be italicized as titles. If you follow me. "Julius Caesar (tragedy)" as distinguished from "Julius Caesar" the dude. I dropped a comment on that, but for some reason didn't keep it on my watchlist and follow through to see what happened. Evidently it was decided to do it; I agree with that … or did till I saw one consequence. If you followed that discussion, was it decided to italicize foreign words in a title? I'm not sure I'm down with that. For instance, Di indigetes was just turned into italic. I feel as if this implies the article title is the title of a work, and there are some Latin terms that may or may not be italicized in English usage, depending on how "foreign" they're felt to be. Can you shed any light on this? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The decision at WP:AT (not accepted without some controversy) was that article titles should be italicized according to the same principles as in the article body. So as they "may or may not be italicized in English usage" (and so in the article text), so too with the titles.

Before this discussion, the community view was that italic titles were only tolerated for Latin taxonomic names of organisms. My characterization would be that it is now tolerated more generally where subject editors feel that it is correct formatting; my impression is that the mass removal of italic titles has been stopped, but that there's no movement afoot for mass introduction of italic titles. That said, I think one of the advantages of the criterion suggested is that bots can look at the lead of the article and italicize the title or not, depending on how it is treated in the first sentence of the article; this is a much simpler test than saying, "book titles, ships, etc., should be italicized." In the discussion I pointed to this article to show that a good online encyclopedia could use italics for foreign phrases (and exempli gratia I added italics here to the titles of A priori and a posteriori, A priori (statistics), A priori probability). Personally, Di indigetes doesn't bother me or make me think of the title of a work (and it appears that the article you were working on had italics in the body before Cybercobra came along and made the title consistent), but I'd like to hear more about how you think it compares to the "a priori" examples, and whether you think it might just be a matter of getting used to something different. Wareh (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this, and I posted above when I was sleepy and not clear. I like italicizing article titles when they represent a title, and commented to that effect in the official discussion. Not doing so is a holdover from the days of mechanically set type. To reserve italics for some things and not others, as you note, didn't seem useful or practical. (As I recall, there was a bizarre drive also to italicize journal titles, but not other titles, the rationale for which escaped me utterly.) I suppose if it's as simple as italicizing anything that's used in the article title and appears in both bold and italic in the first paragraph, then it really may be a matter of getting used to it.

My initial fear, I now realize, was that this would become another angel to dance on the head of the talk-page pin. At the moment, I'm no longer participating in discussions. If I'm linking to an article, and find something I think needs to be addressed, and I don't have time to do it myself, I leave a comment. I leave a comment if there's an opinion sought on something, say at the Greece & Rome project page. But I'm just sick of the kinds of arguments to be had. If I add sourced material and it's deleted or distorted, fine, I'll move on. The prevailing ethic is that WP must be emotionally gratifying to all those who participate for reasons other than presenting the full range of scholarship in a balanced, accurate and useful way. People can be blocked for saying "you're full of excrement," but not for being full of excrement. There's no fighting that. But I digress.

The italicizing of foreign phrases is itself a pin-dancing angel because of the question "when does a phrase stop being 'foreign'?" — how longstanding must its usage be in non-specialized written material before it's no longer italicized? I don't really think that will confront me much. That the decision can be made robotically shifts responsibility on the creators of the text itself. So there 'tis; the problem, if there is one, is not the italicizing of article titles. Think I've worked it out for myself now; thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've been spreading a lot of accurate and useful information lately. If you're managing to do so without stepping in too much excrement, congratulations, and carry on! Wareh (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I should check the bottom of my shoes. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Only" warnings

In the worst case I have ever seen, an IP user had a dozen supposedly final warnings, after a history consisting of 100% vandalism, 100%, and then there was a block.
Why is there no automatic process to follow up on this issuing of final warnings?
Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right there is nothing automatic - it requires the continuing interventions of us gnomes. However, there is a place to go: if vandalism continues after a "final" warning, report it at WP:AIV, and that should lead to a block. Now, with the school IP's & such, the vandalism comes sporadically from different users, so if a dormant IP returns as a vandal, we should usually give one more final warning before proceeding to WP:AIV. However, if the vandalism is blatant, you can go immediately to {{uw-vandalism4im}}, which is a first-and-final warning. Wareh (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

hey dude

I noticed you undone a edit by a school IP today. Maybe WP and schools can get together on things like that so, youknow wot I mean, the admin guy can email the school pronto and give the teachers a chance to catch the beggar, coz the vandalism was 2:03 and you undone and flagged it on the user page at 2:04 (quick shootin, Tex!). A email pronto migth have got the critter between the eyes (and then you woulda been DeadEye Dick as well as Quick Draw Tex!). So long Pardner. I gotta mosey on outa here. 123.211.143.118 (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the cowboy is making a good point, though it tends to get lost a bit in his idiomatic way of talking (he's obviously been watching too much tv). I think he's trying to say this - an admin who reverts and flags vandalism quickly might make a powerful difference to behaviour management in schools across the world if he can notify the schools in time for them to intercept the vandals. Maybe a phone call would be the best way to do this, rather than an email or a tag on the user page. The schools might even pay for the phone call if there is some agreement in advance. It's something worth considering. Children are the future of WP afterall. McZeus (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Na

You're wrong, simply put. You're also emotional. It's seething out of everything you write. You accuse me of being unyielding, misinformed and plagerous when you yourself are behaving in such manners. Sadly, I did read everything you wrote. Every misunderstanding, every false accusation, every ignorant assumption about Wikipedia policy and guidelines that could only come from intentionally not reviewing them. I don't have the time to police articles for your mistakes 24/7 but if you keep insisting on adding articles just because you randomly drop "N.A." in them then they are going to get removed. Period. Continued reverts and attempts to re-add articles that don't have an acceptable reference allowing for their inclusion in the DAB by you will be marked as vandalism. You know better.

And if you keep trashing up the Na talkpage I'll just delete our entire conversation. It's completely unhelpful and totally useless to the construction and improvement of the page and doesn't belong there. If you still want to whine then do it HERE!  æronphonehome  13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

...  æronphonehome  14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)