User talk:Alvestrand/Archive3

My archive

which should start with a 2007-12-23 post.

Boscovich

Hi, I have in my hand a historical paper on Roger Joseph Boscovich 1711-1787, Studies in his life and work on the 250th anniversary of his birth. He was the original inventor of relativity and atomism. He did influence Mileva Maric's work, as such credit is due where credit is due. Feel free to read up on Boscovich to find of his older theories which paved the way to the notions of atoms and the relativity of time and space. There are a couple of books out there some in English most in Latin. I would prefer that you leave the Mileva Maric-Boscovich connection in her Wikipedia entry, for relativity is truly an old Boscovichian idea. Do note that up until now most Western scholars are truly unaware of his works and his significant contributions to science- bcrostro@rice.edu (physicist, technical writer, and enthusiast of scientific history. As of yet there are a pile of letters writtern in Croatian, French and Latin that must still be translated. I'm trying to get in touch with a number of physics societies to help translate some of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.124.87 (talk)

If you can document a reliable source that claims, explicitly, to document that Bosovich influenced Maric, feel free to add it. Note that it's still controversial how much Maric influenced Einstein. All information that is about Bosovich alone needs to be added to the Bosovich article, not to the Maric article. And do remember to sign your talk page posts. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All Music Guide

Just to note, Allmusic.com is probably the most reliable online source for popular music (though it does occasionally err). In fact, it's given as one of the top source suggestions at WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's better than I thought then - the advice at [1] seems to indicate that one should be careful about using them. Thanks for the opposite advice! --Alvestrand (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Baines

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Tim Baines, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Long Way Home (Ebert novel)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article The Long Way Home (Ebert novel), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tita Betty's Children's Show

Sorry about that. I used Twinkle to nominate it and I have a habit of just adding the template using that. Thanks for cleaning it up. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Temple Hayes

I verified this (baseball) fact with Carlton Benton at ASA - The National Governing Body of Softball. Temple Hayes has a certificate verifying this in her office. http://www.asasoftball.com/ ALSO, I edited the first paragraph to change the tone. Jane Kennedy (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Jane Kennedy I originally entered this data. Can you take the notes off. Anything else I need to do. I'm trying to follow AP style and guidelines. Thanks Jane Kennedy (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Jane Kennedy

See talk page. I still think the style has a POV problem. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation Improvements

HI. I thought I'd just let you know that there is a more specific tag for reference cleanups. I've replaced the {{wikify}} tag with a {{citation style}} tag in the Gerald Francis O'Keefe article. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why remove count history from Wikipedia:Dead-end pages?

sorry, i didn't know that's what you were doing, i just thought someone had been editing and had done it wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsp8 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of The art factory

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The art factory, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The art factory is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The art factory, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks, and if you'd like to offer a statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, or at the related evidence/workshop pages, please feel free. The more different opinions that can be brought in, the easier it is for the Arbs to ensure that they're getting a well-rounded view of the situation.  :) This page may also be helpful: WP:CASE. --Elonka 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Alvestrand. It seems that you have been recently invited by Elonka to give your opinion on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. I have been developing content on this subject for about 6 months now, and Elonka has been systematically harassing me, trying to have her POV prevail that "no alliance occured". I am only asking that, per Wikipedia:NPOV, all significant academic point of views be represented. I invite you to read the disputed content for yourself so that you can have an informed opinion [2]. Regards (nice to hear you're from Norway... we're on the same time zone). PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much sign that you have been seriously considering the possibilities that:

• A 200K article about an obscure subject where no consensus exists in the historical community is inappropriate for Wikipedia
• That your actions in promoting and defending your viewpoint in the article may be inappropriate for Wikipedia
• That you may in fact be wrong.

Until I see signs of you seriously considering those possibilities, my contention that you should be barred from Wikipedia editing stands. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think there are plenty of subjects for which there is no consensus in the historical community? At Wikipedia, we simply deal with that with Wikipedia:NPOV policy: all significant points of view should be mentionned, in a balanced manner. This article is 200k because it is highly documented, with a very large amount of academic sources on the subject. Everytime I tried to split the article to make it smaller, Elonka pursued me for POV:fork.

I believe I am perfectly entitled to defend my point of view. I have always been welcoming of others' opinions, and actually the 200k article incoporates many alternative view, especially introduced by Elonka over a period of 6 months (like all the alliance/submission disclaimers and a lot more).

I can't be wrong since all I contribute to Wikipedia is from proper published sources. There is no "wrong" in reporting what the academic community has to say about a given subject. My own personal opinion is totally irrelevant.

Thank you for your kind attention on this subject. Elonka is a master at harassing other users and at trying to make them look bad. Best regards. PHG (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my point has been amply demonstrated. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up on a Previous Edit

I added a link to a rather extensive article on the history of the Santa Cruz County Symphony. The newspaper that published it has been covering the entertainment scene in the area for 33 years, so they should qualify as a reliable source on that subject. Could you take a look and see if it sufficiently addresses the sourcing concerns that you raised? Thanks in advance. Palmpilot900 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Trustworthy Repositories Audit

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trustworthy Repositories Audit, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Finding people in Find-A-Grave lists

Thanks and I will make the corrections you mentioned. I do have a follow-up question though. I noticed in the case of a couple that the there were disambiguous pages which contained a further disambiguous page. For example Adams contains a link to Adams (surname) which further disambiguates to Andrew Adams. Is this really the correct way to do this? It seems like we are taking our readers down a rabbit hole. I also noticed that some names are duplicated between the Adams (surname) page and the specific name page such as the Andrew Adams page mentioned above. This also seems odd to me. Thanks for the help.--Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to me too, but there appears to be no consistent across-Wikipedia scheme around. The Adams page contains links to diverse types of information, so it's distinct from a human name disambigutation page; the Andrew Adams page of course needs to exist as a target for links that are entered without disambiguation, and for people who type that name in the box to the left and hit "go". After the failure of the grand experiment of "List of people by name", which attempted to list ALL persons on Wikipedia, manually, I've concluded that long lists like Adams (surname) are unmaintainable and should be abandoned. But that's only my opinion... and I don't consider it important enough that I'll go and delete a list like Adams (surname) - I'll just ignore it.

Don't know if that helped.... --Alvestrand (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It does help thanks.--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unity

What point ,Unity is outside the Christian mainstream, Does not believe Jesus is lord and saviour but a prophet. Its history is deeply rooted in the New Thought movement of the 1800s. Take a look at the New Thought article unity falls under new religious movements.72.225.239.38 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have you talking at last, Yankee. I don't think the term "Christian denomination" needs to be limited to the "Christian mainstream", whatever that is. I consider the Mormons too to be "outside the mainstream" - yet I don't want to take away their self-identification as "Christian". Now argue that on the article's talk page.... Wikipedia is all about discussion to achieve consensus, not unilateral edits of what you don't agree with. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Larry Page fortune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires_%282008%29 Information pulled from the recently updated billionaires list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.109.75 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then cite that (or the source that cites) as a a reference. Don't leave the 2007 Fortune article in. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Talk:Unity Church

section 24.4 [3]. Low Sea (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, reviewing copyright status and generally cleaning up articles that need attention or a referee. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Treasuring this on my user page.... --Alvestrand (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MOH problem

Thanks I'll fix that today--Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Primordiax

I know you don't think you are being harsh, but please, before you think Primordiax is not a noteworthy game, you really need to do a little bit of research in the online gaming industry.

There are tens of thousands of people very excited about this game. It seems that maybe you are not very familiar with the gaming business, and that is fine, but Primordiax is the next game from a very reputable and very old gaming company. That is a big deal in the gaming business.

Cambios (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you don't seem terribly familiar with Wikipedia.... if you think so, add the references. You claim to know that there are tens of thousands of people excited about this game - cite your reputable source that makes you think so, and the article will be fine. Finding the source is hard for me - it should be trivially easy for you. Go do it! --Alvestrand (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I already added a few references. This is an Unreleased Game. I would suggest that you surf Wiki a bit and look at other Unreleased Game pages. They tend to have a small amount of general information. That is why the Unreleased Game tag exists. The other tags you are adding are superfluous. Everything you are noting is already included in the meaning of the Unreleased Game tag. Not every game company engages in massive amounts of Vaporware tactics by bribing game sites into releasing 9000 previews. Some game companies focus on making their actual games. That means the information out there before a release is limited. When a 12+ year old MMO/MUD company is making a new game, that is notable. When there is actually some information out there to back it up, that satisfies the Wiki requirements. And once again, by including the "Unreleased Video Game" tag, it is already known that information is limited and more will be forthcoming as the release of the game approaches.

I am not trying to be argumentative, and sorry about my talk page. It was getting clogged with a rather asinine discussion that was related to some silly sports team fanboys. It was painful to find actually worthwhile comments like yours. :) Cambios (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Opinions differ, it seems. The {{Future game}} tag says "Please do not add speculation to this article, and remember to cite a published source for details", with "published source" linked to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says in "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" that such is acceptable as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources". At the moment, the Primordiax article seems to be primarily based on company-published material.

As a contrast, check out Dragon Quest IX Hoshizora no Mamoribito (a random pick from the "unreleased games" category, which is primarily based on IGN articles and interviews in publications not published by the company. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients

I wanted to let you know that I have submitted List of Medal of Honor recipients to be a Featured List. If you want to take a look and leave a comment please do.--Kumioko (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Comparison of Windows and Linux

This edit reverted several edits to the article. I'm assuming this was accidental. I have reverted your edit. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One of those was intentional, the rest was not. I've re-added the one I intended. Surprised that no edit conflict was reported! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Standardization of Office Open XML

I noticed that you added a reference to a password-protected site marked "ISO NB members access". Are you a member of an ISO NB? Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a member of the Norwegian NB committee on OOXML and related matters. All committee members are given the password to this site. I'm sure there are copies floating in the wild - if not findable, you can request your national representative to send you a copy. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a grave links

I have created several Medal of Honor articles and I was going to add the F.A.G ref but I wanted to clarify. Once I do do I simply delete it off the list or should I line it out and let someone else scrub the list. Also, I notice that you have been putting in some dates as 1911-11-21. I recommend changing the format to November 11, 1911. Most of the articles do not use the military date system and it sometimes confuses people.--Kumioko (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just delete it - there's few people scrubbing the lists, so if you leave it, it might be a long time until someone notices.

WRT date format, if you put [[ ]] around it, Wikipedia will format it to the reader's preferred date format; I happen to like ISO dates, because they have the most important stuff to the left. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor Vishev

Question: how should I actually proceed with the permission? What would be sufficient for wikipedia to prove it? (please reply on my talk page) Paranoid (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

T. Jackson King page error

Hi Alvestrand. Checked my author's wiki page recently and noted that someone has added a header that links me (T. Jackson King) with some kind of comic book character named >Jackson King< There is absolutely no connection and I have never been involved with comics except to read them, years ago. Could you please remove this silly comic book item? Also, while updating the edited page, I made the error of trying to input an additional External Link page to my new Author's Web Page on googlepages. This page is an update of the already referenced SFWA page that >is< listed. Plus, there are new stories, poems, etc. on this web page. But a Revert Bot knocked out my effort. Any advice on what is OK re listing Links? Thanks, Alvestrand. Tjacksonking (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No particular mystery here - the "for <other article> see" mechanism is how Wikipedia deals with multiple persons, things, books and so on having the same name. In this case, the comic book is named "Jackson King", so it's not unlikely that someone would type "Jackson King" into Wikipedia and expect to find it. I've amended the header to indicate that "Jackson King" redirects to this page.

WRT the revert - check out the page for the bot that did it, User:XLinkBot. It appears that googlepages.com is a place where people put up spam, so the bot reverts links to it if made by anonymous users. You weren't logged in when you made that edit. If you want to have that link, try logging in first. (BTW, did you ever get a copyright permission notice sent off for the T. Jackson King page?) Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alvestrand. Thanks for clarifying the comic book character reference. On another author info web page I was credited with a role in a film about this comic character. Sigh. What you have put up now looks fine to me. As for the Googlepages link revert, I'll do as you suggest. When I saw the revert, I logged in as Myself and made the publication/degree/etc. editing changes. I'll log in again to add the googlepages.com Link, and see if the Link edit sticks. Finally, re your fall 2006 query to me re copyright ownership of my SFWA Author's Page on the SFWA home website, well, Of Course I own the copyright, since I created and originated ALL of the page content that shows there. My new web page uses large parts of that content and expands on it by includng new fiction, poems and interview postings on a monthly basis. The SFWA web page was posted, at my request to SFF.Net, several years ago. As an author, I care a lot about copyright, so nothing that appears on any pages which I originate violates domestic or international copyright laws. FWIW, I hereby give over to the public domain all text and graphics that I originate here and on ISFDB. Does that work for you? Tom 65.19.18.152 (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WRT copyright - sure - just send the same statement in email to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org so that it's officially recorded, and I hope all will be OK! --Alvestrand (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm processing this OTRS ticket now. Was there any copyvio that needed to be cleared? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any now - I remember that I worried about whether or not this had problems with the SFWA web page, but don't remember how I started worrying about it. Sorry! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Undo of self revert in Photon belt

about [4]; are you sure? 2011 instead of 2012 was a recent change by 69.125.241.165 and the edit you reverted was his self-revert 3 hours after this change was introduced. Taemyr (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

hm. The only referenced part I found that referred to either date referred to the "straight dope" article, which mentioned 2011 once, not citing a source. Afterwards, I discovered that someone had added an URL to the "links" section that has 2012 in the title. At the moment, the article's not self-consistent - there's 2011 in the body (twice), and 2012 in the sidebar. I must admit to doing a bit of "shoot on sight" when I see a change by an anonymous IP that doesn't cite a source, and contradicts a cited source.... but I doubt that it matters much to the world. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Always check recent history when reverting possible vandalism. Quite a lot of vandals make their edits in several instalment precisly to trip up this kind of shoot on sight mentality. If a revision is undid then you risk hiding earlier vandalism since other editors will assume that it's been taken care of. Taemyr (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know - and did check.... --Alvestrand (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unicode Book Image

The image of the Unicode 5.0 book has been removed again, this time with a justification given in the Talk:Unicode page. I think that the book image is definitely appropriate for use on the Unicode page, and hope you will continue to oppose its unwarranted removal.BabelStone (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I've added a fair use rationale on the book cover. As a board member of the Unicode Consortium, I do think that I know what constitutes the standard, and as a Wikipedia editor, I do think that the image adds value to the article without reducing the value of the book! --Alvestrand (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've only just started my Wikipedia career two days ago, and I didn't want to get embroiled in a revert war. I've known your name for a long time, so it's great to finally make your acquaintance! BabelStone (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks buddy... I appreciate it. Sometimes my eyes dont scan through all the content to sense vandalism, written correctly enough haha... =) --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Relativity priority dispute / Licorne

Yes, it seems that Licorne wants to make Poincaré the sole originator of Relativity. He also tried to manipulate History of special relativity.
Another problem: The article Relativity priority dispute gives undue weight to non-mainstream views like that of Bjerknes, Logunov, Leveugle, Moodey etc.. Something has to be done. --D.H (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

His bias seems to be that Einstein was a Jew, the Jews are bad, therefore a Jew couldn't have done anything good, and therefore Einstein must have stolen the relativity theory from a non-Jew. The logic totally escapes me.

WRT Relativity priority dispute, I think the encyclopedia-worthy information there is that there HAS been a dispute, and Logunov, Leveugle, Moodey etc all have managed to get their views published. (Bjerknes is self-published). At the moment, the article focuses on the disputes themselves; ideally, I'd like to cite someone investigating the reasons why people come up with these theories, and why they gain traction even when there's little factual evidence to back them up. :But speculating about it myself would be WP:OR, so I can't do that. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright notices

Figure out the copyright rules on Wikipedia, and how to write a fair-use justification, and one may survive. We can't have images that we don't have the right to use. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Why don't you help instead of being mean143.81.248.53 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to help. You're pointing out what you want to do, and I'm pointing out how to achieve it. I can't help you if you won't learn. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Sun (sculpture)

You have tagged the article of Black Sun (sculpture) as being in copyright violation from a Wikimapia entry. I am the author of both this Wikipedia article and the Wikimapia entry. I have changed the Wikimapia entry and reverted the Wikipedia article back to it previous version. The brief nature of both the Wikipedia article and the Wikimapia entry means that they will share some of the same basic facts, but the wording is now different. Hopefully, any future additions to the Wikipedia article will help to differentiate the article from the Wikimapia entry. --Hitch42 —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article on the EURECA (Dark Matter Search)

You have removed this article with a frankly irrelevant reason ('blatant copywrite infringement'). I am the author of this article and a member of the team of scientists working on the project. The European Underground Rare Event Calorimeter Array is an important international scientific collaboration, and we will build a detector capable of conclusively (and directly) testing current supersymmetric theories for the composition of the unseen matter content of the universe. The public dissemination of scientific goals, research and results is essential, and Wikipedia is a potentially excellent tool for this. Removing this article might gratify you in a personal (or commercial) way, but in doing so you have denied many people with no access to specialist literature the chance to understand the methods and aims of modern physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.186.75 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You entered the text of the article on another website, making it look as if it was copied from there to Wikipedia. That other website did not have a note saying that the text was licensed under the GFDL. After a month of waiting for you to show that permission for reuse was granted, nothing had happened. In such a case, how long did you expect us to wait until making sure that Wikipedia couldn't be held legally liable for copyright infringement?

Write a new text, or send a recognizable notification that permission has been granted to use it. The instructions are on the talk page of the user you created to enter it: User talk:S0199079.

The project looks very interesting, and I'd love to have an article on it on Wikipedia. But don't ask us to break copyright law, or let stuff remain here that is likely to be the result of others breaking it. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a complaint about reverting copyvio on Mammatus cloud

Alvestrand: The bottom line is, you destroyed years worth of edits by your carelessness in editing the article yourself. You DIDN'T check, and you don't seem to give a rip. Please just refrain from editing onn Wikipedia altogether until you can pull your head completely out of your ass. (Operative term: COMPLETELY) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.127.62 (talk)

This kind of commentary is why I only occasionally try to deal with the copyright violations backlog. People who upload copyrighted text to Wikipedia are creating harm not only to the copyright owners, but to all good-faith editors. And the abuse gets hurled at those who try to deal with the resulting mess in a way that the lawyers won't be able to find fault with. Sigh. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Brooke

Done!Traditional unionist (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I haven't seen you on -admins in a while. I wanted to let you know about this. I helped organize it and I think it would be good for the Nordic communities. Mike H. Fierce! 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Postel Service Award

Hi - I was wondering about what you said when removing the notability tag from the Joyce K. Reynolds article. As you mentioned the notability of the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award as the reason for Reynolds' notability, I've been trying to find significant independent coverage of this award. I'm not having too much luck finding it covered in reliable, mainstream sources. Maybe you could point me in the correct direction? I'm not too familiar with this award, it's selection process, and its overall notability, so I was hoping to figure this out. Thanks! BWH76 (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I may be a little embedded in the IETF community..... it is a well known award here, but the exposure in the outside press seems more limited than I'd expected. (In this community, Joyce Reynolds is also a very well-known person). I didn't find any coverage in NetworkWorld on the award, and only one mentioning Joyce: [5].

The IP Journal (a trade rag published by Cisco) has numerous hits for "Postel award": [6]. It's not 100% obvious that this source is notable, but it's probably reliable. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I've no experience in this stuff, so I'll take your word on it. What I'd like to do, though, is place a few tags on there (references needed, notability) in order to get some attention so that perhaps the article can be improved. Any problems with that? BWH76 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems with references needed, but there's a tradition of adding prod tags to notability-tag articles, and if nobody who cares catch it in five days..... --Alvestrand (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit count essay

In your [User:Alvestrand|user page] you wrote:

"(...) of course, number of edits are meaningless (there's an essay to that effect somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm too lazy to hunt it down - feel free to point that out in talk)."

Do you mean WP:EDITCOUNT ?

Rjgodoy (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Editcountitis, but that was pointed to from WP:EDITCOUNT, so thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PHG

I am the one who brought PHG to ArbComm. Elonka opposed my bringing that case. In fact, this disagreement seems to be one of the underlying sources of animosity between her and myself. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And after it was accepted, PHG attempted to turn it into "Elonka vs PHG", with a fair amount of success, unfortunately. I think she did a good job there, once the case was accepted. I'd entirely forgotten your part in bringing the case - sorry 'bout that. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment in the Elonka RfC and came here. Elonka was involved in enforcing the arbitration, that's where I became aware of her, actually. Many editors suggested that she had become, shall we say, too eager with it, taking action that weren't merited by the circumstances. An example was that the arbitration settled upon a topic ban against PHG editing article space in the medieval field, which wasn'd defined precisely, however, there are general standards for the time period involved. PHG created an article in Franco-Japanese relations; it was an excellent article, like all of his that I'd read, brilliantly illustrated, etc. Questions of accuracy aside -- that's very difficult to examine, but, I'll note, ArbComm did decide he'd made mistakes, but that they continued to assume good faith. However, the article had a single fact in it from the seventeenth century, as I recall. That's well beyond the medieval area, but PHG was sanctioned for violating the topic ban, and when it was pointed out that the article did not involve any medieval history, that was called "wikilawyering." Basically, Elonka appears to have become attached to the job she had taken on enforcing the sanctions. I was quite concerned at the time, because we could have lost a brilliant editor who, at most, needed some guidance in certain ways, and what he was being shown was hostility. Truly, his articles are among the best I've read, and the level of error in them may be lower than is common in peer-reviewed publications. Go over anyone's work with a fine-tooth comb, and you can usually find errors, particularly in a pile of 25,000 edits.

However, my mention of PHG there wasn't at all intended as a charge against her. It was really only to reinforce my support by noting that I'd been actively opposed to one area of her action. But, on principle, in the matters before the RfC, she was right on. I've made little comment on the detail, i.e., did she fulfill the principles properly? That's an enormous task to form an opinion on. But the movement against her is based on an incorrect understanding of the administrative role. It's the role of editors, qua editors, to "enforce" NPOV, by simply making it happen, using Wikipedia process, following guidelines, but also leading them (i.e., consensus trumps guidelines, it is the basis for guidelines.) Consensus interprets policy with regard to article content, and many times I've seen an administrator barge in and enforce some POV as if it were NPOV, mistaking his or her own content judgment for NPOV, often without even understanding the issues, or sometimes being quite biased about them. We don't give admins tools for that purpose, we give them tools so that they can enforce an orderly, civil, and balanced consensus-forming process, and it is the duty of admins to facilitate that, hence an admin will properly give advice to "POV-pushers" as to how to properly participate, and that's one of the actions she has been condemned for. --Abd (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, there semems little in your text I disagree with. But did you read the Franco-Mongol alliance articles when PHG was theorizing on them? Those had a little more factual basis than "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but not that much; I think you totally underestimate the degree to which PHG was cherry-picking sources to support his pet theories. I saw the Franco-Japanese relations thing too - and worried, as it seemed to stretch ArbComm's ruling quite a bit - but it seemed to pass. But that's why Elonka's talk page was on my watchlist. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alvestrand. I think we agree on the critical things. The Franco-Mongol alliance article was a much more difficult call, though, than you imply, and I found the ArbComm decision problematic, though within reason. The worst of it seemed to be that PHG had drawn a conclusion that wasn't supported directly by a source. This is actually the kind of error that experts are likely to make, and if an expert submits an article to a peer-reviewed journal that contains such an error, unless it's shown to be willful misrepresentation of sources, there would be no consequence at all except some later corrections. *We have tons of much worse stuff on the project.* I'd say that the solution would be to work with PHG to improve his already-excellent work. And that requires sympathetic editors, not stern police ready to rap his knuckles with a ruling if he jaywalks. It's amazing to me that he came back and began editing again. I haven't looked at the volume of his output, though. Has it been impeded? He had civility problems, also common with experts. I'm concerned with the process, a process which often drives away experts at a time when we are trying to encourage them to participate. I feel that I can better help the project by facilitating the work of other editors than by creating articles myself, I'm better at the former than at the latter. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one dislike when Abd injects noise into other people's conversations. I find it to be disruptive. It is surprising how Abd was unblocked (after I had given him the warning before block) and suddenly he appears at a conversation I am having. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alvestrand, if you think my edit here disruptive, please feel free to tell me. There was a clear basis for my coming here, I gave it, and it had nothing to do with Jehochman. I wasn't aware he had posted here until I saw the section header, and my comment wasn't a reply to him. But perhaps I should have started a new section, though the topic was the same? What do you think? --Abd (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, it's bad form to make negative comments about an editor, without informing them about the discussion. If anyone has concerns about my actions, please bring them up in the proper venue, not on random talkpages around the project. Thanks, Elonka 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I apologize if anything I wrote offended you. Would you like me to strike anything? Nothing was intended as a negative comment, it was old stuff, merely explaining a comment that was, in fact, made in an RfC. I didn't want to clog up the RfC with comment that wasn't on point, because your old actions are irrelevant, even if you'd been vandalizing the main page or eating newbies for breakfast. I mentioned them only to establish that I wasn't exactly your pal, I was commenting purely on process issues, where you were right on. --Abd (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Abd. And I apologize to Alvestrand for jumping in on his talkpage here. I'm just seeing a few people start up Elonka-related threads on various pages (see Wikipedia talk:Tag team#Ironic, for example), and I'm trying to herd these kinds of discussions into a centralized location, either on my own talkpage, or at the RfC. So, no need to strike anything, but if anyone wants to continue this thread, I'd recommend moving it to the RfC talkpage. Thanks, Elonka 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, no problem with your commenting here - I don't feel like notifying PHG every time I say that I agree with the Arbcomm decision, it would just raise the tension level around the place. All the words that I want to have any effect on the discussion around you are on the RfC page, and that's how I want it to be. Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you guys for this discussion, and thank you Abd for your comments: I really appreciate. I do feel the Arbcom decision is inappropriate and has been unduely influenced by the relentless attacks of Elonka, her systematic mischaracterization of my contributions, and her garnering of support on-Wiki and off-Wiki. I only work to share knowledge about interesting and little-known topics, I have a great love for Wikipedia, and this is why I have continued contributing actively on numerous topics outside the Ancient History and Medieval History areas. For some of my most recent contributions, please look at France-Japan relations (19th century), France-Thailand relations, Japan-Thailand relations, Siamese revolution (1688), or, for some history of mathematics the Siamese method. Cheers PHG (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Find-a-Grave

Hi Alvestrand, I've been taking a break from Find-a-Grave for a while but intend to return eventually. Go ahead and work on whichever page you like. I've been using very loose standards of notability, but it has occurred to me that some of the articles I've been counting as notable are unlikely to ever be created. I think your standards are more realistic. — jwillbur 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"PHG case"

Alvestan, I would like to take exception in respect your comments on the "PHG case": I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I have never "faked obscure sources" either. Elonka has been making tremendous efforts to discredit my sources however (an historian such as Laurent Dailliez, turned out rightly not to be as criticism-safe as I assumed, but Elonka repeatedly challenged, in vain, the other French historians I had best access to) and to mischaracterize my actions. Throughout this case, Elonka has been pursuing me with wave after wave of false or approximate accusations, moving to other accusations when the previous ones proved too weak (a technique another editor described as "putting fires everywhere") and has continued stalking/harassing me since in my other contributions [7]. And in order to bolster support she apparently uses systematic off-Wiki sollicitations (invisible canvassing/ tag-teaming: [8], [9]). Since then, Elonka has even been claiming authorship of the Franco-Mongol alliance article on her userpage... quite amazing. I am an enthousiastic and a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and all my contributions have always been done in good faith (as recognized by the Arbitration Commity), and I do not think Elonka's behaviour has been appropriate (at all) in my case. I would appreciate if you could refactor your comment. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PHG, multiple people have looked at your sources and found that they did not support your arguments. Multiple people have looked at your way of arguments and found that you indulged in personal attacks. To me, your behaviour on both counts is repugnant, and your continued attempts to defend your behaviour by attacking those who point it out instead of attempting to understand why people find it repugnant is doubly so. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because a few users team up against someone does not prove anything. I know how I work, and I know I never "invented" sources. That there might be differences in interpretation is something else, it is a matter of opinion, and this is why the Arbitration Commity has reasserted good faith on my part. Can you see how mild the level of personal attacks I have "indulged" in given the level of aggresion I have been submitted to? (the worst would have to be something like describing Elonka's "mad circus of accusations" against me). Would you mind looking at the facts? Could you give me a single instance of me "faking obscure sources"? Cheers PHG (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you are misquoting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Findings of fact. The arbitration committee found that you had "cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support". You had "failed to acknowledge any legitimacy to the concerns raised about his edits". You had "reacted to the concerns raised by making uncivil comments or personal attacks (examples) or by edit-warring (examples)". I find all of these conclusions to be well funded.

One point I'll give you: The word "faking", which I used in my RFC comment, was inappropriate. I should have said "misrepresenting". I've corrected that. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As you wish, but I do dispute the conclusions and I don't think a single case of voluntary "misrepresentation" has actually been established (again, discrepancies in interpretation is another thing, and that can happen). You should look at my point-by-point responses to Elonka' accusations, as it appears clearly that all of them either misrepresent my edits or make inexact claims. I am ready to discuss if there is a point you are particularly upset about. Thank you for making the correction, I guess you are entitled to re-use the wording of the Arbcom. Cheers PHG (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal of Honor recipients

I can't find the conversation at the moment but as soon as I do I will send it. The same is also true of the Victoria Cross also, although I am less familiar with that subject. Most recipients are well documented with multiple sources although I will admit some are better documented than others. I have over 18 books with info but I haven't had a chance to include them on all of the recipients. I was concentrating on cleaning up some of the lists and then I will go back to the individual articles. In addition to the books there are also several references online including findagrave, the congressional biographies, the arlington national cemetery website, the Army Medal of Honor website, home of heroes, the Marine Corps hisorical center website, etc. Grey research center on quantico also has a ton of information including photos and they have sent me info on several occassions that was GNU and free access. I hope this helps but please let me know if you have any more questions.--Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in, I ended up with Kumioko's talk on my watchlist at some point, and happened to see your query there. Basically it boils down to WP:BIO#Any biography, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", and sine Medal of Honor recipients will naturally come under the wing of the Military History WikiProject also relevant is WP:MILMOS#NOTE, in particular "Recipients of a country's highest military decoration." (though it should perhaps be noted that this section is prefaced by, "In particular, the following types of individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify", so it might be possible to argue that a particular recipient is not notable. David Underdown (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - the MILMOS reference is pretty explicit. I'll consider the point made, and leave CMOH recipients under "the work isn't done until these people have articles". --Alvestrand (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

bigfootencounters

Hi, can you see any editorial board or anything in this site? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Contact address is @yahoo.com, domain registered with contact @yahoo.com, front page says "An unaided woman runs this website, this is not an organization, club or group; I am not an affiliate of any group or bias, but study independently by preference." It seems to be very frank about being a personal project, so no reason to think it's a WP:RS. I take it there's a debate about using it somewhere? --Alvestrand (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also though thew site is not RS. I am a bit confused over this site [10] Can you see any credibility of this site? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

All these about the article Tri-State Bigfoot Study Group which I AfDed. You might want to join the debate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a small town newspaper site, but the byline on the artcle is the same as the speaker's name, so I think it's self-generated.. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Niklas Eklund

If his website isn't valid, then what is?? It's standard biographical info (about an important trumpeter, but then that's just my opinion as a music critic and journalist) that's not available anywhere else.

Please remove the 'unreferenced' tag--you're just being unreasonable.Cbrodersen (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? I can create a website with any name I want to, and put any information I want to on it, and _from the website_, there is no way you can tell the truth from a complete pack of lies. If you can point to 2 newspaper articles about him stating that he's an important trumpeter (even newspaper articles you've written yourself, if your editor approved them!), there's no problem with the article being unreferenced, and common practice is that you can even add information from the website as long as nobody challenges it - but as it stands, I can't even verify that the guy actually exists from information given in the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on! Did you even bother to look at his website? There you will find many press notices and reviews from well-known publications such as Fanfare and Grammophone. OK, how does anyone know they are for real? Well, you could look up each individual review, but who's got the time to do that, right?

Then there is his discography on several well-known labels such as Deutsche Grammonphon and Naxos, complete with snapshots of album covers. Yeah, unless you go to the DG and Naxos websites to painstakingly verify each one, they could all just be hoaxes.

Then there is the first prize that Eklund won at the Altenburg competition. Again, verifiable if one takes the time to look it up.

I submit that there are many, many Wiki articles on lesser-known musicians that rely solely on the artist's bio (often taken from a website) and that DON'T have an 'unreferenced' tag at the top. They certainly don't provide a footnote or link after each 'fact'--it would be 'overkill' in a non-scholarly article. I could give you examples, but I don't have the time right now. Why is this article any different?Cbrodersen (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take the time to acquaint yourself with a few core Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yes, there is much material on Wikipedia that doesn't conform to this core policy. No, that's not an argument for compounding the problem.

You have plenty of time to fix the article; the tag is just a tag. Once you have 15 minutes to spare, you can do the work that you think should be done, and copy some of those links into the list of references. Then we have no difference of opinion about the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberoam

We have added References at the end of the page to establish the credibility of Cyberoam. Does this addition suffice to remove the marked for deletion message at the top of Cyberoam page Mermaid2008 (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a marked for deletion message, it's a tag saying that there are worrisome things about the article... I've removed the "unreferenced" and "notability" tags given the references. I think the article still has problems - it reads like an advertising brochure, which might get it tagged as spam. You're also missing references for quite a few statements, including the Infosecurity awards you claim for it and its certifications, and membership of the VPN Consortium is not a certification.

Rewriting the article to say what the product does and how instead of gloating about how wonderful it is would be a big improvement. But the references help a lot! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: re User:Tahitia and flags....

Oh I am all for helping any user understand Wikipedia better, as people did with me when I was a newcomer, and even to this day I'm always learning new things about Wikipedia. I just feel that if someone is going to be that ignorant to policies after being warned multiple times, what other option is there? I would never request a permanent block, I do feel this is right, I just believe that if someone is warned and continues to vandalize, if they're blocked for such misconduct then they may learn. Just my personal opinion, which is why I took the case there after warning in edit summaries and the talk page. but if the potential block is countered by a more experienced editor/admin, I will not argue the case. Happy editing. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All the warnings were within six minutes. Not that long a delay. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Merck headquarters

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For finding the sources for Merck headquarters, couldn't have done it without you! MBisanz talk 19:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Random Information...

Please look at the Mt. Vesuvius page; just above the disambiguation template, there's a random "Hi everyone". As it is protected, I cannot revert it, but please do me the honours. :D

Cheers.

Some random user... —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Done. Thanks for the alert! --Alvestrand (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandals, Spammers, Flamers, oh my!

Check this out. Please ban the IP address after looking at each. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absegami_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=245746389 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absegami_High_School&diff=next&oldid=245746389 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absegami_High_School&diff=next&oldid=245746389 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absegami_High_School&diff=next&oldid=245746389

I've reverted all of them, but PLEASE ban.

Cheers.

The Random User Returns! —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

whoops, for the last two, I meant [11] and [12] :D

Cheers.

The Same Random User —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Placing warnings. Everyone gets one. Besides, they seem to have stopped contributing. Note: Use WP:AIV for more organized admin intervention. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research on Battle of Opis

You commented earlier on Talk:Battle of Opis about Ariobarza's original research. Unfortunately he's ignored everything that was said and has created a POV fork based on his OR, at Battle of the Tigris. It's been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris. Please feel free to contribute to the AfD discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

done. Sigh. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You probably also noticed that Ariobarza is now lashing out with personal attacks against myself and other editors who have !voted to delete. This seems to be a habit of his. Having reviewed his edits systematically, I believe there are significant concerns about him that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I do not know if I am breaking the rules here by commenting on your page but what does this mean?

You are breaking the rules. You're supposed to log in and use your talk page.

Ariobarza blocked "for a time period of infinite" by Jehochman. What does "for a time period of infinite" mean?

Ask Jehochman. I think his comment on AN/I was pretty clear:

I concur. The block evading sock puppetry combined with the history of disruption shows that this user account should not be allowed to edit further. If somebody would like to volunteer to mentor them and take responsibility for ensuring that they do not resume disruption, I will consider undoing the indefinite block that I am placing on the account. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[The below is what I told ChrisO], he wants to ban me! He is trying to delete sourced articles, and ignoring me, I knew there was something fishy about him... I could not reach you by any communication, so I am [Sorry] I am commenting on your page now. I do not know why I can edit from my computer now. I know I should not, so I will make this brief. I had prophesied I would get finally banned, despite my efforts to be nice, you escalated things, and I am now blocked, and now you want to ban me? THIS WAS YOUR AGENDA PERIOD! You just needed to sway the crowd a little, so good job. By the way check out my home page, and do not edit it please. So again I know I should not break the rules now, but seeing that your trying to delete valid articles, I had to put in the sources. I do not know if my articles (with you here) will survive in a week, so I had to do it. I am willing to not edit Wikipedia for two weeks (I will double my own sentence, to make up for my breaking of the rules) IF you promise me you will not delete those articles until the end of November, when I come back with my Public Apology and Reconciliation Letter to all(maybe even to you too, ChrisO). I want to come back, I love editing Wikipedia (it has a good feeling, and I ask to have a mentor if I knew I could make articles before making them when putting my name in front of the title I would have done that, and no OR would have occured, I needed to put enough material to sustain the article in the begining, that is why it looks like OR, so this is my solution to how I will be good, thats if you do not ban me of course, if you do I will never come here again, the founder of Wikipedia made mistakes too, and he's a Libertarian like me, so we have something in common, and I have potential to improve, I accept I have made major mistakes in Wikipedia, mostly in OR and CIVIL stuff, I came here to Wikipedia last year, so I am technically new to the game, and wish to survive, so my life is in your hands...) I say this to you from the bottom of my {heart}. Thank you.

Please, I beg you Alvestrand, don't let him do this, when editing articles I will uses sandboxes to perfect it before posting it from now, I will do anything, just do not let him keep tricking the crowd in his favor, he thinks he is special. God help us all.--99.49.15.82 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The problem has nothing to do with ChrisO. It's all about you. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

You've recently contributed to discussions about problems with articles about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

your list

I have put some other sources here. Curtis for example is a well known scholar[13]. Another way to find more scholars is to search www.iranica.com and see which Achaemenids articles are assigned to which scholars on which topic. Most (unfortunately in my opinion not all) of their topics are written by the expert in that topic.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Your page seemed organized around quotations, not publications and credentials, which is what I wanted to find a way to get a handle on - but I'll see what I can crosslink. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Alvestrand, I was wondering if I could get you to delete the De Gobineau reference on your Persian sources page? I have no idea how I happened to put in a reference to a white supremacist in this article but apparently I did. I have deleted it and since it is apparently not really relevant to the page, I would appreciate it if you dumped it. I assure you I will not add him again and am quite uncomfortable being responsible for his addition to this page. Otherwise the page is a very good idea and quite interesting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I wanted to keep his name around in case I encountered it again, so I made a special section for "People who should be cited warily if at all", and removed the notes about where I found the reference. Have fun! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

can you help with the summary in the footnote? I think it is crucial Daku, Nishu and etc. be written. The problem expressed by one user is that the quote from Lambert (since it is kind of long) can violate copy right issues. The best way to go around this is obviously to rewrite for Lambert has written. The stuff about Daku, Nishu though is crucial and I would appreciate it if you as a 3rd party can summarize that portion. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you share the article(s) with me? I don't have JSTOR access, so I can't see anything but the first page. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi I can send you the JSTOR article. But the issue was not the JSTOR article. Check the last r.v., the other side is claiming that the quote I brought from Lambert(exact by exact wording) is too long and can violate copy right. So I thought a 3rd party can help to summarize that quote in the footnote while keeping the main points of Lambert, specially with the Daku and Nishu. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Lambert's article either - was hoping you had that, too, from JSTOR. I can't write anything on the basis of an article I haven't read in its entirety - especially not in this rather tense context. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Okay if you send me a wiki email, I'll send you the JSTOR and Lambert article. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!

Happy First Day of Summer!

A Beautiful Summer Field

Summer is a time for freshly grown fruits and vegetables.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.