User talk:91.148.159.4

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

Your edits to Ceratosaurus[edit]

I don't know what happened, but your edit of Ceratosaurus wiped out most of the article. Also, the dinosaur articles don't use paleoboxes. J. Spencer 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Sometimes, really weird things just happen. J. Spencer 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I figured out what happened. Somehow, you ended up editing the revision of 23:45, 11 June 2006. J. Spencer 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And another mystery...solved! Have a good day, and if you're interested in more pronunciations, could you have a look at Iguanodon, Amphicoelias, or Thescelosaurus? They're a few of the better dinosaur articles, but they don't have anything in the way of pronunciation. J. Spencer 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
From The Dinosauria Translation and Pronunciation Guide, which is pretty good for these sorts of things, Thescelosaurus has a hard "c", like a "k", but in practice, most professionals I've known have turned it into a soft "c". I've never done much in this area because I'm not comfortable with the symbology, and I grew up using some very non-standard pronunciations. J. Spencer 04:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Thank you very much! J. Spencer 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk about timing - I'd just checked my watchlist and your edits, and was writing you while you were writing me! J. Spencer 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus[edit]

Hi 91,

Could you possibly create an IPA pronunciation for Scelidosaurus, too? I don't really understand the IPA pronunciations... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

self-hatred[edit]

I'll take a look at it and try to help if I can. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. +A.0u 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--91.148.159.4 11:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ant vandalism[edit]

The last vandal to that page made two edits: one was vandalism, and the next was repairing his or her own vandalism. So that means there was no net change to the page, which is why it won't let you revert it. Everyking 11:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrogance[edit]

Hi, you'll not be the first to recognize my arrogance. Thanks. But seriously (1) there is a template which is imbedded in the text, so that the text between multiple pages in the notability infrastructure is the same. (2) There is an extensive debate going on in several places about whether the template should be used and what the language should be within the template or used in its place. It's really not a "you" thing, it's a matter of procedure and decorum. --Kevin Murray 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the template Template:Pnc and the text is below:

  • ''"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.

Per your last note, you clearly don't understand the nuances of the process. You will receive much more respect by identifying yourself with a user name and developing a user page. Until then you are due courtesy, but your opinions will carry little weight with me or the community in general. --Kevin Murray 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to read the dicussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about this process and the history of the template etc. You can certainly make comments at the deletion discussion, but your comment will carry more weight if you have a user name etc. This may not be fair etc., but it is reality. Please feel free to contact me on any WP questions. Welcome! --Kevin Murray 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right that there should be more development and consensus before text is included at our policies and guidelines. However, based on my observation nothing gets done until a change is made and controversy fuels the discussion. As a club of writers we have inherent weaknesses including a predisposition to debate issues incessantly with no resolution. Thus a primary tenet of WP is to be bold. --Kevin Murray 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The current state of the page is definitely confusing. I didn’t want to change the notification tag since I'm one of the primary parties to the discussion and there are some raw feelings after a week or so of debate. --Kevin Murray 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right in your evaluation of "wiki racism." However, the problem stems from several sources: (1) some unscrupulous editors will use multiple entities to either vote multiple times or use IP addresses to work around blocks etc. Especially with shared resource computers such as school computer labs etc. (2) We get a huge amount of vandalism generally form unidentified users. Sometimes the guidelines are victimized frequently. (3) Generally unidentified users are new users, whose ideas are welcome in articles, but without experience, lack the understanding of the scheme of the notability and policy infrastructure. I was there myself last year, even as an identified user. I am opposed to the complexity of the rule-sets at WP, because they are such a complex web, and any change must be reflected in many places. If you chose to remain anonymous, you might preface your comments with a statement about your experience at WP and why you choose anonymity. --Kevin Murray 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Register, and become more anonymous[edit]

By registering, but not with your real name, you actually are more anonymous. Your IP address reveals your location. A reason that IP address suffer from lack of respect is that a lot of edits originate from floating IP addresses, from schools or universities, where a lot of vandalism also originates from. SmokeyJoe 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I realize that; I'm not that concerned about complete anonymity, I just don't have the patience to register each time. I have actually had an account for a year now, but I use it very rarely, mostly to create new articles, or when I think it especially necessary to avoid prejudice against IPs and stuff like that. --91.148.159.4 11:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cicero[edit]

No, it was not a typo, but I wrote so in order not to catch your attention. I feel you "know" (type besserwisser) and are arrogant. To say: "removed useless stuff from the lead section, is very much POV". You did not give me time to find a person, who would know whom first century Roman I was citing, but removed the whole sentence. Calm down! Wishing for better and friendlier relationship with you in the future.--Tellervo 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I can tell you're relatively new here. Take it easy! I understand that you are very sensitive about your edits (I have the same problem :)), but what counts is wiki policies and the quality of the encyclopedia we're working on.
I didn't mind the bit about the first century Roman so much, but you actually preserved that part of my edit in which I deleted it, and you reverted my other edit, apparently by mistake. Note that it is not OK to write inaccurate (deceiving) edit summaries in order "not to catch someone's attention" (see e.g. Help:Edit summary). A minimum of honesty is expected. I'm sure this is due to inexperience and not to bad intentions on your part.
As for the "first century Roman sentence", I wrote that it is unnecessary (not "useless") because I felt it was not *so* important in comparison to the other info, and the lead section should only contain the most important and non-dubious information. Even if I was wrong to say that and if my wording was too offensive (I don't think it was), strictly speaking, that wouldn't be called WP:POV (only edits to articles are supposed to conform to NPOV); rather, you could accuse me of being a dick :).
I removed the sentence also, among other reasons, because somebody else had already challenged it by adding a [citation needed] tag, and because the fact that the Roman is unnamed looked suspicious. Usually, people at least write "Sallust/Livius has said", even when they don't specify the book and the paragraph. Note that I am perfectly in my right to do this: any sentence may be removed if there is no source specified, and it's up to the other party to prove it's OK by sourcing it (see e.g. WP:V).
Anyway, I'll add it to the talk page of the article (I guess I was wrong not to start with that) and I hope you can find a source. Look at it this way - if the sentence is inaccurate, that would harm wikipedia's reputation. If it's not, the article won't be so harmed by losing it (hopefully only temporarily).
Best wishes,
--91.148.159.4 12:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dhampir[edit]

Hi, Thank you for your recent edits to the Dhampir article. Could you please try to re-insert the information you posted there last time without deleting any of the information already there. It would be useful if you could cite sources for your contributions as well. Finally please try to avoid POV as it is likely to ignite edit wars. Hope you are enjoying your time here at Wikipedia. All the best!82.6.114.172 10:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from 82's talk page, where it was deleted):
Hi! Could you please explain which of my edits you regard as POV? Contrary to what you claim, I have cited sources for every single one of my changes, but if you tell me which statement you think lacks sources (or, better still, add a [citation needed] tag), I might be able to point out the place where the source is cited. On the other hand, I see that you are the author of the etymology section that I moved to the article talk page and that does lack sources, as well as being somewhat unclear in other ways, so I would be glad to discuss it with you there. Best, --91.148.159.4 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian infinitive[edit]

See Talk:Balkan sprachbund #Bulgarian infinitive. Arath 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus[edit]

Hello! If you get some time, could you add an IPA guide to Parasaurolophus? There are two common pronunciations; according to the DML Translation and pronunciation guide, the one I thought was wrong is actually more accurate (which is good, because that's how I say it). J. Spencer 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, done.--91.148.159.4 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and also for Deinonychus! J. Spencer 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure! --91.148.159.4 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

April 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Plains Indian Sign Language do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=tommyfoley) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hmm. I'll try like this then.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Adamorobe Sign Language. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwa4KdB7oV4) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Re: Louis XVII[edit]

Wow, I'm sorry about that. For some reason, I thought you were putting the "reflist" there. Again, I'm sorry about that. There is no problem at all with your edit. Thingg 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw the removal of a large chunk of cited text by an anon IP and thought it was vandalism. You should register so these kinds of things are less likely to happen. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth[edit]

I noticed your edit to Larry Sanger. Wikipedia does not respect truth or facts or sourced material. Editors can delete anything they want from an article by just saying "no consensus". To prove this point, take a look at the history of this article. Editors are deleting sourced material without any logical objection. According to your edit summary at Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is flawed. Maybe you are right!. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, let it be known that I won't comment your behaviour in this issue so far - I've already expressed my opinion about that - I will only reply to what you are saying in this specific post.
You say: " Wikipedia does not respect truth or facts or sourced material. Editors can delete anything they want from an article by just saying "no consensus" "
No, editors won't just say "no consensus" - they will argue on the talk page or in edit summaries, either that it isn't really "truth or facts", or that the "sourced material" isn't adequately sourced. If many argue so, then there is in fact no consensus. This is, as far as I can see, the case in the conflict that you cited, too, as people are in disagreement e.g. about the interpetation of specific Wikipedia policies regarding pseudoscience. And this shows the flaw in your regarding of consensus and truth as alternatives. In this situation as elsewhere, people aren't seeking consensus as opposed to truth, they are seeking consensus about the truth, i.e. they are seeking the truth through consensus.
Again - discussion and consensus are a means to establish what the truth is. They are not an alternative to truth as you present it. Eating pizza is not an alternative to digesting carbohydrates.
Since you're a side in the dispute you linked to, you're naturally assuming that your position is identical to "THE truth" (as opposed to consensus, i.e. to the position of the majority who disagree with you). However the fact is that there is no way for other people to know that. "The truth" is that you can't get "The Truth" pre-cooked anywhere in the world. You always get opinions about the truth, and you always need to decide which of these opinions is true. When people have different opinions, there are two possible ways to establish "the real truth". They may discuss and reach consensus about it. Or they may ask a person with authority to tell them what is true. It is a matter of personal opinion which way of "cooking" is best, but putting the question in the way you're doing it (Consensus or Truth?) is like saying that "The United States is based on democracy, not on good government" or "Jim is a nigger, not a human". It is inherently and totally non-neutral, because it implies that democracy can never be a good form of government, that black people can't also be humans, and that the truth can never be established by means of discussion/consensus.
But even this is not the whole story, your wording is not only inherently non-neutral, but also doubly misleading, because it also suggests that Wikipedia determines the truth by consensus, (as opposed to Citizendium, which determines it by expert authority). While Citizendium does indeed set out to determine truth by expert authority as opposed to external reliable sources, Wikipedia is not merely the opposite of Citizendium. Contrary to Stephen Colbert's ramblings, Wikipedians do not determine by consensus the truth itself, they determine by consensus what has been claimed about the truth by reliable sources (hence the real principle WP:Verifiability, not truth, as opposed to the mock principle - *WP:Consensus, not truth). There is still room for discussion, because just as people have different opinions about what is true, so they have different opinions about which source is reliable, which sourced fact is relevant for the article, and how to interpret various more specific policies. This is, again, precisely the case in the conflict that you linked to.
But note that even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be any evidence about Wikipedia's general principles, but rather of their violation that may occur in practice. Your wording misleadingly suggests that it is presenting the official principle of Wikipedia. And indeed, since the article describes the official principles of Citizendium, it would be both natural and fair for it to contrast them with the official principles of Wikipedia, not with their violations. The source for the official principles of Wikipedia can only be Wikipedia's policy pages and not Stephen Colbert's or Oliver Kamm's highly unqualified impressions, or your own (or, for that matter, my own) original research based on our personal experience with Wikipedia. Otherwise, one could easily say that Wikipedia's "real", practical principle is, say, "the most obstinate and least employed person wins", and I don't want to imagine what the "real" practical principle of Citizendium could turn out to be in the long run.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This post is completely irrelevant and shows that you haven't understood or even read anything of what I've written above.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.  Here are the exact quotes from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The source is both unreliable and demonstrably wrong, as argued in detail above.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Read this comment. I made a proposal on a talk page and another editor wants me to show him how could there possibly be consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
First, that's not true, you're misrepresenting the context (it was your own fault that you mis-placed your proposal in the sequence where people were discussing whether there was consensus or not; your opponents on that talk page are discussing the merits of the proposals of your side, rather than vetoing them by misciting WP:Consensus, as you claim). Second, even if it were true - as I pointed out above, your original research about specific editors' (mis-)behaviour can't be a source for Wikipedia's policy. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
All in all, your replies above show that you've decided to play deaf and the only way in which I could force you to stop this game is by edit warring and looking for allies. Since I don't have the time to do this, you win. As I said, this is a typical Wikipedia situation, and shows a major flaw in the project. And again as I said, it's ironic that you are convincingly proving your Citizendium-ist point (that Wikipedia sucks) simply by personally making it suck. I won't read any of your further posts, because I want to spare my nerves. I will, however, post this exchange on the article talk page, in the hope that my argument may eventually be read and taken into account by others.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize you're on a break, but after exhausting all other alternatives I have raised an incident about QuackGuru's behavior on this topic. Wasn't sure whether or not you wanted to weigh in. Rvcx (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jordi Galceran has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/pages/jordi-galceran/45773485268).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

July 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Sheath and Knife has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. SchnitzelMannGreek. 19:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied from SchnitzelMannGreek's talk:
If I were a registered user, you wouldn't revert my edit just because I haven't provided "an informative edit summary", would you? This pattern of behaviour is very irritating.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse me, it wasn't that because you are an unregistered user. It was that I saw the edit as vandalism. If it wasn't, then thanks for telling me. In fact, your opinion counts more than you think so I'm glad you corrected me. But when you write something like "(or he kills her!)"it often is taken for vandalism. If you feel it was a good faith edit, please undo mine. Cheers, SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Though I still think you assumed it was vandalism because I'm unregistered; if I were registered, you would have at least checked the plot of the ballad (linked to in the External Links) to see, well, if he really does kill her; or more likely, you wouldn't have bothered to suspect vandalism in the first place. Anyway - have a nice day! Best, --91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer to my question about "chosen people" article[edit]

I really appreciate your kind and elaborate answer to my question about the "chosen people" article. This is just to give you my acknowledgement in a hurry, although I want to write more about your comment to you..

PS:As I was at a loss where to put my thanks, I chose this IP-user's talk page of yours. If you find this message a personal one and of no importance to others, you can delete it. Although I have not made my user page yet, I have made my Wikimail available; so, if you would like to contact me, you can use the follwing link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/YOSHIYUKI_OGAWA

And although I have made only a small number of contributions either in English version of Wikipedia] ,Japanese version of Wikipedia, or in Translatewiki_net, the following is the most elaborate one I have ever made so far.

http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Support&diff=1306294&oldid=1306239

Best,--YOSHIYUKI OGAWA (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Talk:Two-Spirit[edit]

Hello 91.148.159.4, it seems you've had this IP for awhile now, so I thought I'd leave a message. I see that you've commented on Talk:Two-Spirit,where it seems you recognize the particular kind of POV-pushing which is occurring in that article. Since we IPs don't have watchlists, I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you to take a look at the discussions underway, which revolve around the misrepresentation of sources and a proposal to move the article back from the neologistic "Two-Spirit" to the scholarly term Berdache.24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

December 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Shahnameh has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Darren23Edits|Mail 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about my mistake, I thought you were adding spamlinks, etc., and I considered it unconstructive. Good luck and Happy holidays! Darren23Edits|Mail 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

Anthony (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. OK, I'm glad you agree - I didn't dare remove that stuff on my own, for fear of an edit war.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're a bit of a hero of mine, and "nice work" applies to your oeuvre. I'm thinking about going IP for a while, once I've finished a few projects I'm in the middle of. 122.105.65.119 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very kind! Happy editing,--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hadith[edit]

Good addition to Hadith.

The article really needs a more general rewrite. The Muslim editors have elaborated the traditional Muslim scholarship section, but the Western academic scholarship section needs a lot of work. I would need to do a lot of reading to do a good job, alas, of books not easily available where I live. Zora (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article does need that. I can't do it either, as one could tell from the fact that I only copied a paragraph from another article (and didn't even care to re-word it). And even if I could, I would have to be in a really special mood to do it, in view of the inevitable resistance that I don't have the time and the nerve to address. All in all, the sad fact remains that Wikipedia articles about cute kittehs are written and edited primarily by cute kittehs, from a cute kitteh point of view.
Try Google Books, though.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That's one reason I quit editing for a couple of years. I was sick of dealing with cute kittehs. There seems to be an endless supply of opinionated but ignorant cute kittehs of many religious persuasions, political convictions, ethnicities, and nationalities. Zora (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, with one qualification - to me, it's actually even worse when they are not ignorant. My misanthropic impression is that knowledge usually does not alleviate or compensate for bias; on the contrary, knowledge amplifies the impact of bias. One can amass an enormous amount of knowledge and yet use it only as a weapon in favour of one's preferred agenda - which is probably what one amassed that knowledge for in the first place. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cataphract[edit]

While I appreciate some new interest in this seemingly comatose & oft-forgotten article I would like to point out, the burden of proof lies with the editor making new changes to an article, to prove they are really worthy of inclusion, particularly when you remove or otherwise alter other editor's changes that have been made previously. As per Wikipedia:BRD I've reverted most of your changes (2 have been left as they are) and I'll await your deliberations on the talk page to any future changes you wish to make to Cataphract. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Thank you[edit]

HOOTmag (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Urartian language tags[edit]

I put the tags inside the references, not on the article , it is messing up the article that way. 75.51.170.95 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true, you originally deleted them: here's the diff. Then you re-added them after I reported you at the WP:ANI, but now you've inexplicably deleted one again. By saying that it messes up the article you mean it looks bad, but that's because it is bad: that way, you can see them and every reader can see that the sourcing is disputed. I have failed to verify your claims based on your sources. Instead of reverting and trying to make it look pretty, you're supposed to extract the quotes where you say the sources contain the claims. You were very quick in reverting, yet you still haven't given the quotes, although the sources are online and you should be able to simply copy-paste the quotes. If you continue to refuse to provide the quotes, your addition will be as good as unsourced and I will consider myself justified in deleting it.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, the page has been semi-protected. Please add the requested quotes on its talk page, or else within a day or two I will revert your edits using my account.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Old Norse morphology, removed information[edit]

Hello. The information on the gender of the past participle was sourced. Although there were weak verbs with an unrelated -inn, which you might have been thinking of, the past participles in -inn are in fact the article, and past participles are declined for gender whether they're weak or strong. In the future, if you question sourced content, please read the sources, and if a claim is not represented in the source tag it with {{check source}} or {{citation needed}}. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

First, the link to the source is dead and not preserved on the Internet Archive, so I can't read it (and can doubt that it has been interpreted correctly). Second, the past participles in -inn are not "in fact the article". They have nothing to do with the article historically, they have no definite or pronominal meaning. They existed in Proto-Germanic long before the suffixed article arose. And by the way, I never wrote that weak participles don't decline for gender.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have now read the sources on the other site, which isn't dead (http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/), and as far as I can see, the source does not claim anywhere that the ending of the strong verbs is the definite article. As for policy practice, I'm not obliged to use those tags rather than remove the information immediately - the burden of proof (WP:BURDEN) is on those who want to keep the information. In this case, I felt that the claim merited immediate rewording - in any case, by saying that the two are phonetically identical, I preserved your basic insight, just without the historically misleading wording that identifies the two things.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pahlavi scripts reference[edit]

Several years ago, you inserted ‘This script contains 19 characters which are not joined.<ref>History of civilizations of Central Asia, 1999, Vol.3. P.89</ref>’ at Pahlavi scripts. Would you please give author or editor, publisher, publishing place &c?

189.61.0.190 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)