User talk:Perceval/Archive3

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thames, thanks so much for your helpful contributions at the Jacrosse arbitration evidence page. As you said on my talk page, it does indeed take up a lot of time; but if it eliminates our problems with Jacrosse, in the end it's worth it. Besides, in a place like Wikipedia there's a huge free rider problem, and somebody has to do the dirty work! Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder whether he's beating a "retreat," as he would call it (see this choice comment of his) from Wikipedia. Take a look at this diff. Hydriotaphia 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is a retreat, then the arbitration is already having a positive effect. Unfortunately, a change of heart at this point isn't enough to erase all those diffs on the evidence page. I hope this arbitration is relatively open-n-shut, because if Jacrosse somehow squeaks out of it, he will be impossible to deal with.—thames 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the support

Hi Thames- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy link in World order

Thames, I changed anarchy to anarchy in the World order page, and you reverted the edit. I'll certainly accept that Anarchism might not be the best fit - perhaps Anomie? - but as anarchy (word) redirects to the disambigaution page Anarchy, I thought it best to remove what is in effect a link to a disambiguation page. I certainly have no intention of edit warring over this and haven't reverted. However, I did think that wiki style guidlines discouraged links to disambiguation pages. If you believe that ths current wikilink best suits the article, I'll let it be. Cheers, Colonel Tom 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: it's been long lacking, but I'll make a stub article for Anarchy in international relations and link to that. Since it's a unique and distinct concept, it does warrant its own article. Sound good?—thames 14:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an excellent solution. Thanks. I truly hope I'm not coming across as patronising when I also thank you for adding the new article to the disambig page for Anarchy. Cheers, Colonel Tom 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Oswald Spengler.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oswald Spengler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-Nv8200p talk 20:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power in international relations

Hi, just wanted to tell you that a new page for Great Powers is going to be created in the future. This page is meant to be a summary of Superpower, Major power, Regional power and Potential Superpowers, which means that the page should detail exactly when the United States became a Superpower as opposed to Great power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The namespace "Power in international relations" does not restrict the article to superpowers. "Major power" isn't even a strictly-defined term in political science, unlike superpower or hyperpower. I'm not sure how this got decided, but it's a nonsensical limitation.—thames 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Many thanks for your support of my RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your trust. Regards, Kaisershatner 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Ok, will do. Esaborio 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I must have been in a hurry and didn't notice... Esaborio 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid peacock terms

thames wrote:

Here's the page I was referring to: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. All the best. —thames 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I learned something new today. Your message was a welcome one, When I saw the new message icon, I actually expected the "Big-brother, paternal copyright police", because of my cut and paste postings on the prediction's talk page. I was happily incorrect.Travb 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks

Re: authorlink = Walter Laqueur

didn't know that.Travb 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geostrategery

I have gotten around to making a reply at Talk:Geostrategy#Stevertigo_intro_text. -Ste|vertigo 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-SV

Middle Power

I don't know if you just read the anecdote about the origin of the term or the whole talk page. If you did read the whole talk page you would see that I added references from the Canadian Encyclopaedia, the Government of Canada website, and two published books. I also asked that no countries be added to the "list" without similar research, which someone did, so we added Australia to the list. I especially invite you to read about the book on South African's potential Middle Power status, which goes into the theory of what a Middle Power is. Kevlar67 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have all of these citations, why isn't the article cited yet? Not one single sentence in the article has a footnote.—thames 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Badly-formatted Clavier?

Some time ago you expressed reservations about a part of Well-Tempered Clavier which I wrote - formatting and 'Wikisyntax'. I still am not, experienced enough here to know just what you meant. Can you explain? --Tdent 16:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a good starting place is Wikipedia:Manual of Style. That will help with understanding a lot of the formatting conventions used on articles. Let me know if I can be of more specific help to you.—thames 18:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justification article

Hi,

I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.

Thanks, --jrcagle 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Major power" nonsense

If you were to nominate this awful article for AfD as OR, you could count on my unflinching support. Albrecht 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah from AfD! Albrecht 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me immediately

Please contact me as soon as possible.--BradPatrick 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind (double entendre intended).--BradPatrick 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind (again). Do please contact me offline.--BradPatrick 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Thanks for all your great work. Danny 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Danny. Maybe I'll see you on down the trail.—thames 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for the vote in my RfA! It did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

This case has been closed. The final decision is in the case page at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]