User talk:Wareh

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Wareh, 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: The five pillars of Wikipedia, How to edit a page, Help pages, Tutorial, How to write a great article, Manual of Style. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Tone 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have figured this out now! Wareh 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Coffee Preparation

Hello! Instead of the link you added to this article, do you think you have the time to incorporate any additional info it has? If it has a lot of info that the article doesn't, it would be really good to improve the article. If not, it doesn't really add a lot to people's understanding of the subject. Just a thought. I'm rabidly anti-link! Skittle 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize. I added this link, because in the course of improving the entry Napoletana coffee, I realized that the FAQ had more detailed information about the variety of brewing methods and their proper classification than has yet been incorporated into this Wiki article. So let's leave the link there as a stimulus to someone who can do a good job of enhancing the article to the point where it can be deleted as superflous. Wareh 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OBL

Please do not put garbage in the articles. Thank you. DS 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think that was garbage. If the article is going to have a whole section on that deranged woman's ludicrous fiction, it should have a sentence with a reputable source at least giving the substance of her ravings, n'est-ce pas? Wareh 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to be referring to something so peculiar on the grounds that it's in Harper's, you'll have to provide the issue and page number. Thanks. DS 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! I haven't included it on the grounds that it's in Harper's, I've included it because it's vivid information as to how Boof actually describes the subject of the article. The rest of the Boof stuff in the article is in the category "fiction that gets to stay in Wiki because a source can be cited." In a just world, Boof's role in this article goes down to two sentences: a vivid representation of her own delusional statements, and the comment that she is generally regarded as delusional. I've provided the first half of this. Wareh 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

Although i disagree with you I appreciate your comments on the proposed policy page. But, you need to know that the discussion of this proposal pretty much ended over a year ago - it was clear that the proposal would not be accepted, the proposal was defeated, although the vote was relatively close. My point is, it is a dead issue. Preference for dating system is to be determined by those people active in editing a given article. Around that time editors on several religion related articles reached an entirely informal and unofficial compromise which was that articles about Christianity or privileging a Christian POV would use BC and AD, articles on Jewish or Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc. topics would use BCE and CE, and articles representing the views of different faiths including Christianity would use both systems. This has been a pretty stable arrangement for the past year. I want to reiterate that it is not a rule but rather a way for editors of diverse views to get along with one another and move on to actual content. the actual policy is, both systems are allowed, it is up to the editors of a given article.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of realized it was a defunct discussion. Just thought I'd add another perspective to the record. I think an informal and flexible policy is certainly the right solution in practical terms, and I do sympathize with the desire to avoid inappropriate religious biases, as I hope is evident, despite my quirky opinion on this point. Wareh

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Jagoldai Liqueur coffee Gregory Wright (astrophysicist) Evagrius of Constantinople Commentary on Job Gregory Serper History of Animals Targum Onkelos Laches (dialogue)

Coffee pot Hexapla Gregory Vlastos Alcaeus (mythology) Alcibiades (dialogues) Charmides (dialogue) On the Heavens Coffee bag Gregory Barker John Anthony McGuckin

Cleanup Torrefazione Italia Hippias Sanka Merge Epigram Grain coffee Yiannis Dritsas Add Sources Virtue ethics

Gregory Dark Gregory Douglas Wikify On the Soul Cuban espresso Southeast Alabama Expand Spiel Biblical Hebrew language Marcus Terentius Varro

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Protagoras

At User talk:168.10.112.2, you apparently blocked the user for vandalism on 4 August 2006. The user blatantly vandalized Protagoras today, and I'm wondering if the IP address oughtn't to be reblocked. (It serves multiple users through the Georgia Dept. of Ed., but the contribution history seems mostly vandalism.) Wareh 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As the last warning was a blatant vandal tag, I have reblocked the IP vandal for one week. Thanks for letting me know! You can report these vandal attacks at WP:AIV, which may get a quicker response than leaving a message on an individual's Talk page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sappho

The "long" mark follows the "p" in Sappho because it is geminated. --Macrakis 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Wareh 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award the Epic Barnstar to Wareh for excellent scholarly contributions in general, and for contributions regarding Greek history and the Bibliotheca Teubneriana in particular.

It's about time someone recognized your excellent contributions. Have a barnstar. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wareh 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gears history

Hi W, Just to let you know that there seems to be records of gears being used by "North African Hellenistic culture" at 360BC, but I have no "hard" reference - this was a commercial website, and the facts are stated as "while historians generally accept", without saying who the "historians" are. I'm looking into it, but may need to get help from our engineering library. You had a good question - WP is short on melding science and history. Seejyb 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: I glanced through your discussion page. Who/what is Boof/OBL? Seejyb 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The silly little controversy above had to do with the references to Kola Boof's self-advertised alleged affair with Osama bin Laden. Thankfully, since then, her name has entirely disappeared from the OBL article (I had intervened when there was a credulous reference, by inserting some of the quotes from her own memoir [as excerpted in Harper's] that are hard to take seriously). Wareh 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

((unblock-auto|1=149.106.224.2|2=repeated additions of unsourced and potentially libellous content|3=Can't sleep, clown will eat me))

Hey Wareh. If you are able to leave messages on talk pages other than your own, you are not blocked. It may be that you're coming from a network that requires login. Please let me know if this is not the case, or email me at the address listed on my userpage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was still getting the autoblock message when I contacted you, but it turns out that I simply needed to clear my cache. Thanks! Wareh 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Bible

Do we really need to cite it here also even though the New Jerusalem Bible article sites this? http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/6/wansbrough.html The Sunday Missal uses the Jerusalem Bible in the credits section of the introduction page. I have reverted back but if you want to press on with the citations for both we could, but is it really needed here? (CptKirk 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Citations are always nice; my main concern, though, which I'll try to state clearly at Talk:Jerusalem Bible and Talk:New Jerusalem Bible, is just that I'd like good reasons for believing that every bit of the text in the article is precisely correct. Wareh 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I nice work on User_talk:Jay_ryann. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work at WikiProject Spam! The project pages gave me valuable pointers to the right templates and procedures. I'll continue dealing with linkspam as often as it crosses my path, and I appreciate the warm welcome to join, which I'll do if I become a more active force in the antispam wars... Wareh 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Sappho

Hi, Wareh! I recently (and admittedly as a total experiment) nominated the Sappho article for Good Article status. The reviewer made some wonderful comments, some of which I've implemented. However, I'm not very well versed in Sappho's works. Would you mind taking a look at the other suggestions and seeing if you can do anything with them? It was a learning experience for me - I know now that I should have more than a little knowledge about the subject before nominating an article :) Live and learn! Anyway, your help would be appreciated! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in helping this article. In fact, while you were leaving that comment, I was looking (unsuccessfully—but I think I can find it when I go home) for the reference to the Italian article that showed the connection between Sappho and Gregory of Nazianzus' poetry! Meanwhile, please contact me again if a more specific question comes up that you'd like help with—anything concerning this article or the rest of Archaic and Classical Greek literature. I'd be glad to look at texts in the original and maybe try to find some references. Wareh 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cartago delenda est v Carthago

If you're sure, please do proceed. I wasn't and Google hits didn't help. Seems you have expert knowledge - if you can fill the requested citation in the article, please do! --Dweller 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure and am just waiting for an admin to delete Carthago delenda est so I can move the page there. The form Cartago is found in some inscriptions, but it's not standard. The Dutch, German, Finnish, Danish, and Croatian Wikipedias have articles on this phrase (I'll add the interwikis after the move) and have all gone with Carthaginem. Wareh 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. If you can enhance the article today, we can probably get a DYK. --Dweller 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for enhancements. Do you the the cn tag at the start is still needed/justified? --Dweller 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be fine deleting it. If anyone follows up the references to the ancient sources, they'll see that it was one man's clarion call at any rate! Wareh 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle texts

Thnaks for falgging two Aristotlte texts for possible linkspam. I've changed the link (for the same translation), so I guess they can now be kept. --Tikiwont 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, these are unnecessary articles that need additional clean-up chores, so I'm not sure it wouldn't be better just to delete. Basically, there are far more significant works of Aristotle that have no articles. It's hard to believe that these stubs are destined to grow anytime soon. Moreover, they were created under non-standard names, so they need to be moved if they remain as articles. In theory, it would be great to have good articles on every minor treatise Aristotle wrote. In practice, the only reason to have these articles exist now is because one editor wanted to linkspam. While I wouldn't ever want something deleted without total consensus, I will consider just changing these into redirects to Aristotle. Does that seem reasonable? Wareh 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I wasn't aware of the naming problem, but merely noticed that the translation can be sourced somewhere else and that there are other similar stubs such as On Longevity and Shortness of Life (which actually caused me a copy and paste error), so I just thought I give it a try. Now, I really have no definite opinion, but having a stub for the missing article On Youth, Old Age, Life and Death, and Respiration with a link to the translation as well as to Aristotle might be practical, while there may be indeed little sense to keep the ambiguous redirect On Breathing around. --Tikiwont 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'll write a stub as you suggest and add the prod template to On Breathing with an explanation. Wareh 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to my philosophy page

Hi Wareh, It seems you deleted the links i posted to my philosophy website online (see here), but I'm not sure why, you said they were 'linkspam', but my intention is to build the most complete collection of philosophy resources online, and in each section, nietzsche, plato, aristotle, bertrand russell etc it has more content online than all of the other listed sites in the external links section, in some of them, it has more content than all of the other sites do _combined_. In the section "Wikipedia is not a directory" in the faqs it only says that you should not post links to "repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons", "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries... wikipedia is not the white pages", or "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." In wikipedia's 'spam' page it says no social networking sites, no products, no businesses, no blogs, and again this site meets none of these criteria.

If you could explain why you've done this then please leave a comment here or on my wikipedia account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.227.222 (talk • contribs)

You're conveniently leaving out the prohibition on "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" (see further Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). You're linking to your own website, and any argument over the quality or aims of your website is beside the point. If you want Wikipedia editors to leave the links alone, the minimum first step would be to remove advertising from the pages linked to; no one is going to countenance a campaign to generate advertising revenue by placing links in Wikipedia articles.

What I've written above is the full reason and the point of view held in consensus by the Wikipedia community. But I'd like to raise an additional point. Can you reassure me that, for example, your hosting Brad Inwood's translation of the Halcyon is not in violation of copyright law? And do you have Francisco Gonzalez's or Hackett's permission to reproduce Gonzalez's translation of Clitophon? These are obviously not public domain texts, and the fact that your website, in general, does not provide even minimal bibliographic information on the texts you've harvested (translator, publisher, year), it is hard to know how many other texts under copyright you have in your collection.

I encourage you to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. But first it is necessary that you understand that strewing links to your own website (even if it were not for-profit) is the very definition of linkspam. Wareh 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, but i try to put bibliographic information where i can, you say there is no translator information, yet you have cited two examples where the translator is clearly stated, and the majority of the other texts which have been translated from a language other than english have at least this, if not more details available. publisher details seemed irrelevant where the texts are in public domain and normally available in many different editions. the advertising on the site will just about pay for hosting costs, which is the reason its there, so far the site has made about $10 in two and a half months. i typed up the text of halcyon myself, simply because it wasn't available anywhere else online, without thinking to check whether it were were in public domain or not, assuming it would be. the text of clitophon is from http://ac.nice.fr (i think thats the url, try copying any section of the text in quotes into google). anyway, the question is, do you think my site should be listed anywhere in wikipedia's external links or not? -dave

Look, I like the way you're formatting the Plato texts on your website. And I'm also one of those people who would just as soon have free access to the best of everything. The low ad revenue you cite is all the more reason to consider going ad-free on parts of your website you really want to be seen as respectable and attractive in the public sphere (Wikipedia, academia, etc.). (And, let's be honest, if you succeed well enough in promoting your site, you could make significantly more money from it, which is why the only way to deny the profit motive is to eliminate it.) Then, understand that on Wikipedia, self-linking is simply a total taboo (I got myself in trouble once before by giving an editor advice on the conditions under which linking to his own website might be acceptable; he did everything I suggested, and still got blocked for persistently linking to his own website, which is why I'm being so sure not to repeat that mistake with you); all you can do is build the best site possible and trust that it will get noticed (there is nothing wrong with suggesting it to other editors on a talk page, although, again, any promotion of your own wares will be met with a good dose of instant skepticism). Now, the copyright issue is a very serious one. "Assuming it would be" is a dangerous strategy that won't get you very far with the publisher's lawyers; the law will also not respect the argument that you don't have to worry about the copyright if someone else broke the law & put it on the internet before you. You should never put any text that is under copyright online without permission, and (as a corollary) you should always know the publication info, including year, for anything you host. Otherwise you will (1) have no credibility with the law-abiding world (Wikipedia, academia, etc.) and (2) expose yourself to very predictable legal trouble. The ac.nice.fr site seems to be breaking the law as well. But something like the Halcyon (where you enter the text yourself from a book published in the 1990's and are the sole provider of it on the internet) really ought to set off a red flag in your mind! Wareh 13:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice, if you think of anything else leave a note on my talk page, best regards, Dave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.1.148.83 (talk • contribs)

De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

Ok. As I said, I had no knowledge on the subject in question, I simply wanted to help out. That was why I did not empty the list as I thought it best for another opinion on the matter.
Seraphim Whipp 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yipes, no wonder you asked for more people to watch this article! I wonder: does Doug know that these works were written in Latin? The numerology seems to proceed by counting the letters in English... --Akhilleus (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His answer to this is that Petrarch knew English. Jerome too, I guess. Wareh 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This reminds me of the theories of Edo Nyland, who really deserves his own WP article. He believes that all modern European languages were artificially created from Basque roots sometime in the Middle Ages. (I wonder if Petrarch knew Basque...)

Anyway, there are no easy answers in a situation like this. Unfortunately, the wiki method favors people with unusual viewpoints--they're very passionate about their chosen subjects, and users with less energy get tired of arguing and move on to other things. So, one piece of advice is: be patient. This situation will probably last a lot longer than you want it to. Second: get more input. This is already happening because of your posts to the Wikiprojects, but other methods of getting more editors involved are Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Third opinion. These are initial steps in the process known as dispute resolution; further options are mediation, and eventually the Arbitration committee. I doubt the situation will get to that point, though--as I've already said on the article's talk page, article content is governed by the policies WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, and The Petrarch Code doesn't meet those, and won't even if Doug publishes his theories in a book.

As for Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Crackpot users, I can see the application here, but that page isn't policy. Another page to look at is Wikipedia:disruptive editing--this page is a guideline, not policy but something that has a force akin to policy. However, Doug's behavior, as far as I've seen, is not anywhere close to the level that would warrant a block or a ban; for the moment, we'll just have to deal with it. I'll keep watching the page. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across your interesting problem quite by accident, and just wanted to offer condolences. If it is any consolation, you are not alone. The more obscure the topic, the lesser the probability that you will have anyone rational working with you on it. Try to get some outside editors to put the page on their watch list in order to help out with the reverts. For a cross-cultural example of a numerological crackpot see: Subhash_Kak#.22The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda.2C.22_and_its_critiques. Buddhipriya 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, and especially to Akhilleus for all of those leads which I may follow up as the situation prompts & as time allows. I think the best thing for me to do is to keep the page (and possibly some of Doug's other pages) on my watchlist, but to force myself to intervene more occasionally and concisely. I can't afford the time involved in writing fruitless footnoted explanations on the talk page every time Doug adds something irrelevant to an article. My hope under this policy would be that less is more, in the long run (because I'll stay involved rather than giving up). If I need to sound the alarm, I think I'll go to RfC instead of Third Opinion, because the latter did not attract anyone willing to get to the bottom of the situation when it was used for Doug's 62 sub-articles to De viris illustribus; I had to go and nominate them all for deletion myself. Thanks again for the counsel & sympathy. Wareh 13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If he adds something to the article with no reference, just revert it. You do not have to do much defense for reversion of unsourced content. No footnote, no entry. If you follow the same practice yourself, you will add fewer remarks, but each will be well-cited and therefore difficult to remove unless the citation can be shown to be false. Having a few friends watch for unsourced additions helps you not break the 3R rule. People may not be able to assist you by adding any well-referenced content, but they can certainly help by throwing out unsourced nonsense. Nonsense that is sourced is more difficult, since Wikipedia does not have good procedures for vetting sources. Buddhipriya 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Helots

Thanks for the information. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Prison writings

Thank you! I noticed; appreciate it. There's a lot more I can think of offhand (MLK letter from Birmingham jail ... Marquis de Sade, 120 days of Sodom ... Mein Kampf ... Civil Disobedience ...) I can add some when I'm home from work and have more than a few seconds to spare. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, never mind: you already put those in. I was remembering a version I saw from several hours ago... :) Antandrus (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've missed something obvious, but I'm hoping it has some critical mass now. Thoreau got a lot of mileage out of that night in jail, but I don't think that'll qualify him. Wareh 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hullo

I've just been accused by User:Doug Coldwell of being your sockpuppet. I gather I came to his attention after I cleaned up some category tags he had put in a lot of redirects, but I notice he's mentioned in your talk as well. Am I right in guessing that there's some kind of feud going on here, and I got caught in the middle? RandomCritic 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hullo to you, and greetings! I'll add a note to Doug on his talk page.

I do like to think my involvement in Wikipedia doesn't include any feuds. But I did call (successfully) for the deletion of 62 articles Doug had put considerable work into, and then raised the question about the appropriateness of some of his content and its relation to his original theory that Petrarch wrote the New Testament and designed a numerological code. On one talk page, this snowballed into a very intense and wordy (and, in all honesty, a little bit too fussy) series of disagreements. I don't think there are any particularly active issues going on right now; I don't think he's been focusing on Jerome and Petrarch lately, and I decided I don't have the energy to clean up a problematic article by Doug like De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch). You and I, it seems, were both recently involved in sorting out Renaissance and Medieval categories (I was of the opinion that Petrarch should not be classed as Medieval, but stronger feelings on the other side prevailed, so I let that one alone too). We also both noticed Doug's categorized redirects.

You might not have noticed me, but I certainly noticed your good work, since, as Doug says, there aren't that many editors out there obviously using a knowledge of classical languages to improve the encyclopedia! (My checking out your contributions may have led me to edit some articles I otherwise wouldn't have seen; I don't remember.) Let me know here if any issue comes up you think I can help with or should know about! Wareh 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This came out of the blue, quite suddenly, and I wasn't sure what to make of it -- now I have some context.RandomCritic 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Coldwell is still claiming I am your sockpuppet (on my Talk page). This is beginning to feel like harassment. Just so you know, I have told him to take it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I begin to see how he thinks: "Hmm, two people don't talk to each other. Sockpuppets? Ah, they do talk to each other. Definitely sockpuppets!" With that kind of range of reasoning, it's no wonder he thinks that the Bible was originally written in English by Dante (or whatever).RandomCritic

Well, to say what I trust is obvious, I hope you'll call on me here if there's anything I can do. Don't the higher-up admins have the power to confirm that we are accessing Wikipedia from different places? Really, I'd like for there to be an investigation, so Doug can plug a definite case of hysterical error on his part into his worldview, though I haven't noticed that facts have gotten much traction there before. Wareh 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, sockpuppet investigations to prove one's innocence are not performed. The appropriate places to report cases of suspected sockpuppetry are Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. However, since Doug's allegations don't pass the laugh test, there would be no point in investigating. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk

I took no offense from what you said. My response was on the heels of having my response to another question removed from the Misc desk in which I stated that people object to the ideals of the National Rifle Association. Thanks for the compliment on the response that I supplied the questioner. Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

nous

Yes I agree could you help with the issue of ontology. Also please pretty please with money and cherries on top-work over the demiurge article- LoveMonkey 13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to have a hand in improving the content of these articles, but I just don't have the ability to sit down with the material at this time. Which is why I was asking for help on needy articles from editors who are already actively engaged in making substantive contributions based on their knowledge of Neoplatonic doctrines. Sorry to disappoint you if you thought I was offering help on a subject where I was begging for others' help! Wareh 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you deleted the Divine Nous article, there goes the neighborhood! Next you'll deleting articles on about edible pantys! Whatzz amatter you? Anyhoo Doug seems like a nice person. But man using bad sources is unforgivable and very sophist and bad for the truth. Anyway the nous article is a better place for the psychological components that different Hellenic based philosophies based their schemas on. But tackling the nous/demiurge topic and trying to explain why I have all this compunction is a real real mess. Keep soldering on! LoveMonkey 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Images at User:Wareh

Re Image:Teubner Babyloniaca.jpg, Image:Teubner covers Gk.jpg, Image:Teubner Gk type Griechische Antiqua.jpg, Image:Teubner Gk type original digital age.jpg, Image:Teubner Gk type original.jpg. Hello Wareh, an automated process has found images tagged as nonfree media, specifically fair use. The images, listed above, were found at User:Wareh. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a minor perversity of Wikipedia: to keep the millions from festooning their user pages with humongous copyrighted pokemons, I mustn't be allowed illegibly tiny thumbnails of sample Ancient Greek book pages and covers I've scanned, which, even in higher resolution, would be permissible fair use on any web page where I could conceivably put them, except for at wikipedia.org. So be it. Wareh 13:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Iesous!

[1]. (I reverted it already.) --Akhilleus (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest mess is at Eidos (philosophy), where I've just reverted a big expansion that did not seem even vaguely appropriate or correct. Wareh 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

French titles ref desk follow-up

Hi, Wareh,
Please see User_talk:K.C._Tang#About__French_Book_Titles_on_the_Ref_desk. A fairly good answer? What do you think? Looking forward to your thoughts.
--Shirt58 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've put up more comment at the reference desk (and linked this from User talk:K.C. Tang too), which I hope will help in clarifying the standards. Wareh 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Opsopausism

Hm, very interesting! Has Doug been pushing an Opsopausite line all along? Because, you see, repeated attempts to include fringe views in Wikipedia constitute tendentious editing, and if severe enough justify banning; unfortunately there's all sorts of tedium to go through first, like a user conduct RfC. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that Doug is a tendentious editor; the user conduct RfC is laborious and imperfect, but I would certainly support it, given the evident quality decline in every area of the encyclopedia Doug has touched. (I assume you've seen Talk:Divine Nous, where I call attention to the fact that he seems to be going increasingly anonymous to get under the radar.) I don't think he's an Opsopausite; I think, more likely, since he knows nothing about the ancient world and ancient ideas, but instead generates new garbage articles based on Google searches, he actually thought that the writings of John Opsopaus constituted a scholarly reliable source on ancient Pythagorean doctrine. By the way, I think I've already rooted out the worst links to the utk.edu collection. Wareh 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion re:Doug on WP:ANI

Wareh, if you're around before it gets archived, I started a discussion on some of Doug's recent editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doug_Coldwell.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29.3B_original_research.2C_content_forking.2C_and_material_in_userspace. You may wish to contribute your thoughts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, knowing your previous involvement with this editor over a long period of time, you would be in a good position to write up a request for comment on him - since that seems to be what the AN/I thread is turning into. Pastordavid 04:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pythagorus

So why is Pythagorus listed in his category as an occultist? Would this not make Socrates then one as well? LoveMonkey 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that the category has been removed, and this seems right. I am interested in Pythagoras in the ancient context, and I think the idea of "occult" (whatever its adherents say) is definitely modern. Since later occultists have claimed Pythagoras as part of their tradition, I don't think it would be impossible for there to be a category that indicates this. But occultist seems wrong. "Occult" is so broad a term that, as the article occult says, "most everything that isn't claimed by any of the major religions is considered to be occult (and many things that are). Even religious scientists have difficulties in defining occultism." A browse through the category shows that it intends a narrower sense inappropriate to Pythagoras. Wareh 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Glossy!

Yay, we have Glossa Ordinaria! A bit stubby, but I'd love to know more about it, myself. I know it exists, but it's one of those things whose name I kept hearing and the substance of which I never met. I assume that it was "patristic exegesis" (four levels to every story: personal, anagogical, allegorical, and apocalyptic) and that it was one of the things that informed the various versions of the Physiologus, but I don't know. Do you know of an author who discusses the Glossia that I can go look upon. I don't mind doing the leg work, as I dig hermeneutics (+5 obscure pun, that). Geogre 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're excited! My contribution was really only finding the Google Books links to the Patrologia Latina text (which I am proud of, though). The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a pretty good brief account (though Walafrid Strabo is no longer accounted the compiler): the compiler

made extracts chiefly from the Latin Fathers and from the writings of his master, Rabanus Maurus, for the purpose of illustrating the various senses -- principally the literal sense -- of all the books of Holy Writ. This gloss is quoted as a high authority by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was known as "the tongue of Scripture". Until the seventeenth century it remained the favourite commentary on the Bible; and it was only gradually superseded by more independent works of exegesis.

Here are three sources I'm sure will give you an excellent basis for understanding the Glossa ordinaria better and improving our article on it (and, if needed, further bibliography): (1) a chapter "Memory and the glossa ordinaria : liturgy and interpretation" in Candler, Peter M., Jr., Theology, rhetoric, manuduction, or, Reading Scripture together on the path to God (Eerdmans 2006 – Google Books limited preview); (2) the introduction to The glossa ordinaria on the Song of songs, translated with an introduction and notes by Mary Dove (Kalamazoo, Mich.: TEAMS, 2004); (3) the chapter "Glossa ordinaria," by Jenny Swanson, in The medieval theologians, edited by G.R. Evans (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001 – Google Books preview). Best wishes! (By the way, fourfold exegesis is covered at Allegory in the Middle Ages, but this seems hard to find and not well-linked from the expected places.) Wareh 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

• Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination).
• Potential canvassing: [2] [3] [4].

--Akhilleus (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, thanks for locating that conference program. You might want to note its existence at the AfD. Personally, I think the lack of good sources in English still warrants deletion, but the notability guidelines aren't clear on that point. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, thanks for the comment at Talk:Liber sine nomine. I have to wonder how extensive this problem is, and whether there are problematic passages in Petrarch and Boccaccio. I just don't have the energy to check right now--documenting that stuff yesterday was exhausting. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The question that really interests me is whether documented blatant plagiarism (especially after explanation and warning) is the kind of thing that can lead to some more definite sanction than the whole gamut of other offenses obvious to informed readers of Doug's work. And his blatant lies (at the now defunct Talk:Divine Nous), claiming not to be associated with IP's that are obviously him, ought to be put front-and-center in any future explanation of his methods to the wider community. (Perhaps also the outrageously unsupported claims I complained of at Talk:Letter to Posterity.) Wareh 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably isn't. Something very strange about this encyclopedia is that you can be easily blocked or banned for interpersonal offences, but behavior that harms articles--e.g. giving undue weight to fringe theories--is viewed less seriously. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, I note the existence of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Wareh 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

CE/BCE

Thanks for your note -- I'm well aware of the guidelines and often cite them myself. At the time of these edits, I was reverting an anon contributor who was making CE to BC and anti-abortion edits on a number of pages. His motivation could conceivably been a religious pov. I was also monitoring the recently featured Ebionites, where the issue is being discussed on the talk page. In addition, CE seemed to make more sense to me on all three of these articles. In regard to a "substantial reason", my training in anthro/history makes me a BCE/CE advocate, as the term is more neutral and less culturally loaded. Consequently, I would consider any article on culture, particularly prehistoric, i.e. Minoan, or on an invention predating the birth of Christ, i.e. Threshing-board, to be better served by BCE/CE. Hebrew language, as you implied, speaks for itself. However, I am not militant on this topic. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Preston article

Excellent article on Thomas Preston. I adjusted the Elizabethan theatre article assessment page accordingly. I rated it a B, but only because I thought it premature to rate a new article any higher. If somebody asserted that it should be an A, I doubt I'd argue. Ugajin 08:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope this will attract some further work! Wareh 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Greek Plays and External Links

Hello Wareh, I've received a few notices from you about the external links I've posted on a few of the Greek plays and epic poems. I am posting the link again here so you might have a chance to look it over again, and fully understand what it is I'm linking. This is not spam, it is a free online e-book, asking for no money in exchange for reading it, and is completely relevent and useful to anyone studying these plays/poems. The Odyssey. Just click on the book cover and the full pdf document will be pulled up. Thanks for reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.176.122 (talk) 19:41:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I believe the spam warnings I posted raise some important points you're not addressing. First, any Wikipedia account (or anonymous IP) being used solely to promote the offerings (free or not) of a single website is strongly suspect. More importantly, Ian Johnston makes all his works available on his own website. If any of his work is notable enough to be linked from an encyclopedia article (which might be doubted, given that it's all basically self-published material put on the internet as resources for courses), then the authoritative source (the author's web page) only should be linked, and there is still no reason whatsoever to link to richerresourcespublications.com. This is not an idiosyncratic quest on my part, and in the past I've seen users completely blocked for doing exactly what you're doing. Please stop promoting the richerresourcepublications.com website. Wareh 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thucydides article

I cannot understand why you undid my change. I just tried to make the sentence a little bit more well-written. Ashmedai 119 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"At the very first line of his opus magnum" (specifically, "at") is not idiomatic English. You also added typos like "imforms" and a backwards slash (\). As you say, all you changed was the wording, not the content; accordingly, I did consider cleaning up your edit instead of undoing it. But I thought it was plainer and clearer the way it was before. For example, I thought the previous writers had good reason for repeating the word "plague" for clarity, and I thought "very first" and "opus magnum" sounded unnecessarily dramatic. This is just my opinion, but I hope that, if you believe the section still requires rewording, you can take these points into account for your next stab at it. Respectfully yours, Wareh 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory of forms right now

Hi there. The quotes you put in are not working in this context. What shall we do? I suggest not using the big quotes here. I've used them a lot and I am not all that happy with them.

The transliterated Greek - it is customary in such articles and is a sign you know what you are talking about. The problem is you see that many English words come from the Greek words of the text but do not mean the same, so you need a referent. English might use form but it does not appear in Greek or you might assume two English instances of form come from the same Greek word when they do not!

I need a decision on the format or I have to put it back. We could move the picture; it is decorative only.Dave 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. The other changes were OK (so far). Thanks for improving the transliterated Greek. Believe it or not in other articles in which I used transliterated Greek they started demanding the Greek. Unbelievable. I'm putting in refs and adding sufficient detail to clarify. I actually like the article. I see a lot of the series need the same sort of work; however, they seem to vary in quality.Dave 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're working on the article, and I only intervened cosmetically because the lead had grown indigestibly huge. I thought the structure would be clearer with new section headings (by the way, I'm also not invested at all in the section headings I added—please feel free to alter them to something more appropriate, move them, etc.; all I feel strongly is that some headings were needed to articulate the article), and, in the same spirit of improving the clarity & keeping the long paragraphs and quotes from deterring the reader, some way to set off the quote. I really don't feel strongly about the formatting, so I'm going to leave it the way you changed it back—but you must see something different on your screen, because what I did was an improvement for me, despite the fact that I am rarely partial to the cquote template. By the way, since I see you've been inspired to work on hylomorphism, you might take a look at formal cause (we also have a stub article final cause, etc.). I'm the one who put the cleanup tag on it; I keep meaning to come by and replace it with something better, but I've never found the time. Wareh 03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a lot of work for one man I dare say. The tags should be on. I started out not wanting to do the notes but I've been totally converted. The whole series lacks notes, what a pity. As to the headings, often your first spontaneous thoughts are the best if you already know what you are talking about. So, I got no problem with that. Some like short intros and some long. I've been working on botanical stuff and they seem to like very long up front material. I can see it both ways. In hylomorphism I deferred that as it is clear that much of what can be said for matter and form is being or will be said under PLato. Before you can link to anything there has to be something to which to link. I see you took the book out. Well it was only deco to relieve the tedium for ordinary readers. The format is a tool to attract and retain interest. I'd like to see more pics but they are tough to find for philosophic articles. The German article has a most excellent pic but the captions are in German. If you know how to access and change those pics the equivalent in English would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ogonek

I'm glad to subject this matter to a proper discussion. I'd be grateful for you to visit the talk page and see if I haven't given an acceptable rationale for keeping the palaeographic e caudata separate, as it is historically distinct from e-plus-ogonek (and the term "ogonek" is not correct for it, except perhaps in some very generalized sense as modern typographical jargon). I would be glad to see all the usages properly parallel to the other letters-plus-ogonek merged into ogonek, and in fact I agree that this is good for consistency. Wareh 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have no objections. Proceed as you wish. FilipeS 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of copyright to what an editor wrote and added to Wikipedia

Dear Sir: I have withdrawn my own texts and translations of the cantigas d' amigo from the article on that topic. They are copyrighted material. Other 'editors', through their ignorance and arrogance, insults and abuse, have made me give up all hope of trying to improve anything in Wikipedia, namely on the subjects which are my main area of research, medieval Galician-Portuguese philology and poetry. Please do not put those texts back. 137.73.120.57 13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rip Cohen, alias MB

I do not know enough about Galician-Portuguese literature to adjudicate your dispute with FilipeS. (I noticed your page blanking only after watching User talk:FilipeS for the first time recently in connection with a minor discussion about an unrelated merge.) If I did know more, I can assure you that I would respect your academic credentials and do my best to make sure that everything valuable in your contributions receive a warm welcome into Wikipedia, subject to the normal collaborative reworking & pursuit of consensus (see WP:OWN). What I do know, however, is that every time you clicked "Save" to make a contribution to Wikipedia, you did so on these terms: "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This encyclopedia would not function at all if editors had the right to demand that their contributions be used only on special terms they invented. So your assertion of control over your contributions will not impress the community of editors. I am not a lawyer; of course there are guidelines and procedures for disputes involving copyright. But on reading the text I link, it seems obvious and implicit that, since you admit contributing your material under the GFDL license, deletion is not required. (While, again, I am not a lawyer & do not speak on behalf of Wikipedia, it does seem that if you do not possess the copyright to your contributions, then, perhaps, you infringed on your publisher's rights by licensing it to Wikipedia, and your publisher might be able to make a valid protest.) Of course, contributions from scholarly sources should receive due attribution when appropriate, and you should bring it up on a talk page if you think this would be appropriate. I want to end this by saying for the third time that I'm not a lawyer, and for all I know you have a legitimate claim, and there is an established dispute resolution process that can serve you. But deleting content you freely gave to the encyclopedia doesn't seem the best way to approach it. Moreover, I hope that the spirit of generosity that first moved you to give your work as a gift to this free encyclopedia still carries some weight, despite your disgruntlement & frustration with FilipeS. If you take the time to document such points as "All competent scholars use the term Cantiga d'amigo," then I have faith that, eventually, even obscure article talk pages will attract enough notice that the view based on reliable sources will prevail. Respectfully, Wareh 14:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madame: I do indeed have copyright to those materials. Elsewhere (in the Galician-Portuguese talk page) I reversed myself and said to keep the stuff. It is not the 'merciless editing' that bothers me (I am also a writer), it is that unpleasant mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the ancient Greeks called hybris. Given that I spent twelve years to produce the first critical edition of the entire corpus of cantigas d'amigo since 1926 (reviewed by top scholars in Portugal and Galicia and called a 'magnificent work'), and that I have actually read all 500 texts in the manuscripts and studied all relevant problems of paleography, metrics, colometry, historical grammar, etymology, interpretation etc., it takes an awful lot of chutzpah (to use the technical term) for a couple of proktoi to inform me that I cannot read the language, and require their approval to remove a vowel that was never there in the first place. I thank you, in any event, for a courteous and thoughtful reply. XAIPE 137.73.120.57 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)rc/mb

I'm not going to take up as my mission to keep your material in the encyclopedia, so if you have further concerns about its inclusion, I would recommend the dispute mechanisms I linked above. I'd just like to repeat my suggestion that, even if conflicts have dissuaded you from continuing to edit Wikipedia, and even if you feel certain that some aspects of the article are not in as good shape as you tried to put them, it would still be the more generous thing to do not to begrudge (to the people who will read the article & aren't involved in the conflict) the benefit of that material of yours which the other editors have seen fit to leave intact (you want to punish FilipeS, but your act works against readers throughout the world who share your interest in this literature). Just a suggestion. Best wishes, Wareh 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I saw that you independently put it in these very terms at Talk:Cantiga d' amigo. Good for you—those appreciative readers out there really do exist. Wareh 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I vowed not to contribute another word, but I'll see. It does take up a lot of time. But I am writing to say that I just checked out the Sappho article (noticing that you had worked on it, and also because I still teach ancient Greek and Roman poetry and was wondering if it would be useful for my students) and burst out laughing when I read on the talk page that someone thought olisbos meant plectrum! That is really funny.--Maurice boaz 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I should really add, just because I think you accept that I speak with good will, that it would always be better to add nothing than to resort to profanity, blanking of an entire page, etc. If you can carry on putting the emphasis on contributions of high quality with good references, you will become known for reliability, a reputation that can only be hurt by public attacks, whatever the motivation. Wareh 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The covenant of the pieces

Ta! --Dweller 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More tools?

Hi Wareh, going through your contribs I realized you're not an admin, and going through your contribs I realized I think you'd make a good one. If I nominated you, would you run? If elected, would you serve? —Angr 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind thought. Would I serve? I would do my best to use any additional tools responsibly. I would certainly be grateful to use them to accomplish things I already do more efficiently (deal with vandalism, rapidly revert edits of users spewing spam into the external links, move pages when appropriate, block persistent warned vandals without visiting WP:AIV)—I would continue to try to be a good Wikipedia citizen, going after problems as I see them. I can add, I would continue my curiosity about the Wikipedia project, i.e. (slowly) learning more about hitherto-unexplored functions and policies that help the encyclopedia's mission. Does this count as "serving"? I'm not completely sure; I would want to keep my main focus on improving the content of articles (directly, by adding good material with references to reliable sources). In short, I would use my "mop" to spend the time I do give to Wikipedia more efficiently, with the same goal (a better encyclopedia). Now, I doubt you would hesitate to award the extra rights & responsibilities to me to be used on these terms. But, while I haven't read a lot of RfA's, I have gotten the vague impression that candidates say things like, "I would spend n hours weekly fixing such-and-such backlog." I don't think you should nominate me unless you think the crowd is likely to be enthusiastic about a nomination that can only say, "He may not ever spend the sorely-needed n hours on p, but he knows a good deal about x and y, he's responded to most of the messes he found with a sense of responsibility, and he seems to try to have civil and friendly dealings with his fellow editors. If he can deal more rapidly with the good-citizen parts of the job, maybe he'll have a few more odd minutes to write some good paragraphs for our articles." Personally, I think it would be a good thing to have my demographic (people with some academic credentials editing Wikipedia in their spare time) better represented at all levels, but I don't feel too strongly about being an administrator, because (A) I harbor no illusion that I would have much more of a policymaking voice with the title, and (B) nothing is significantly holding me back now from making the contribution that best suits my interests & abilities. Finally, in the coming years there may be periods where book manuscripts, family responsibilities, etc., restrict my time for Wikipedia, so if the standard is only to appoint editors promising a sustained high level of activity, well, I could make no promises. Wareh 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I haven't followed many recent RFA's, so I don't know how recent successful ones tend to go, but I don't think you really have to make "campaign promises" to spend X number of hours a week doing task Y. But I do know they like to see people who have spent time discussing policy matters, who have contributed to deletion discussions, and the like; in short, people who are interested in encyclopedia maintenance as well as encyclopedia building. I don't think you have to promise a sustained high level of activity, but of course if you go into an RFA saying "I mostly want to write articles and add sources, and I don't know if I'm going to be able to spend as much time in the future at Wikipedia as I have up till now", people will say "Then what do you need the admin tools for?" and vote against you. But if you do feel that you'd like to help clean up the messes around here (which means not only vandal-fighting, but also helping out with deletions--take a look at Category:Administrative backlog to see what I'm talking about), even if means spending less time writing articles, then I'd be glad to nominate you. —Angr 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, in reality, I probably do spend more time chastising vandals & keeping things tidy (not to mention answering Ref Desk questions) than writing content. While I'd love to have less red tape in the way of moving pages, etc., I don't see myself becoming a regular presence in, for example, AfD discussions (not to mention closing them, etc., which would probably cause me undue agonizing), which is something I could do even now if I were so inclined. So really, to that typical question "What do you need it for?" my answer is, "Not much; I'm just so darn trustworthy that the encyclopedia will be better if I have it & use it as little as I like." I don't think this is what the community is looking for in its servi servorum, so I don't think I will accept your offer (for now—I appreciate your confidence in me and will let you know if I become more seriously interested in taking on the office). This way, if circumstances permit, I can turn without guilt to my backlog, which consists not of thorny copyright questions and problem users, but of things like, "Provide a better article on Brunetto Latini or Euthydemus (dialogue)." Again, not that many administrators don't find the time to outwrite me many times over, and not that I won't continue to putter around dealing more with vandalism, spam, moves, etc., than strewing pearls. Yours truly, Wareh 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Loeb

Hello, Wareh. Would you like to join this discussion? Regards.--K.C. Tang 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've weighed in. I hope my somewhat ambivalent take on the question is useful. Wareh 14:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

205.155.48.5 vandalism

Just block the IP next time, it is a school account. Lots of vandalism from kids messing around. --205.155.48.5 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The stream of vandalism from this IP is comparatively light, and the normal course of warnings has not yet gotten to where seeking a block through WP:AIV (I am not an administrator) would be appropriate. Do create an account if you would like to contribute responsibly! Wareh 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk (Ariston)

Yes, that was a goof, thanks for the speedy help! Wareh 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops didnt mean to template you, I take that this is just a mistake, um yeah please move it to the relevant namespace. Thanks! Phgao 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, please delete it. It is the result of a typo, and a move is not appropriate. Wareh 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah therein lies the problem, just leave the tag on, as I'm not an admin :) Phgao 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

parallelepiped

Could you reproduce here (or better, on my page) the current OED pronunciation? My e-copy of SOED doesn't have this word (only parallelepipedal). The OED CD version is clearly wrong: you cannot have the sequence /lˈɛ/ within an English word; to do so would make it two words, Parallel Epiped, like you get in Deus Ex. kwami 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

schwi

Hi Wareh,

Are you saying ᵻ does not display with your fonts? (I'm wondering how you saw it to know what it was.) If so, we shouldn't use it, and instead can strike out ɪ manually: ɪ. So far it only exists in the parallelepiped article and the chart, so it's an easy fix. (It's not actually IPA, but an unofficial extension of the IPA that's been around for years and was just in 2005 adopted by the OED. kwami 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Abbey Girls

Hi Wareh,

You removed the series categories for this article, but the article is in fact about the Abbey series not just the book of the article title (for which the series is named). Should I move the article to 'Abbey Series' or 'Abbey Books' do you think? [which if I understand things correctly should give an automatic redirect for anyone searching on 'Abbey Girls']

I have done 2 other article on Oxenham's books: the connecting series Abbey Connectors and the non-connected titles Oxenham Non-Connectors, so this article would fit in better as the Abbey Series. But when I came new to Wikipedia, it was called 'Abbey Girls', and I didn't at that stage know it was possible for it to be changed...what do you advise please? ... Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did note in my edit summary that, if it does cover the whole series, "it should be in appropriate subcat(s), not in main category." So please do add Category:Series of children's books or Category:Novel series, whichever you think is more appropriate (or both). As far as your other question, I see that it really is an article on the Abbey Series. So it would be a great service if you'd move it to that title (just use the move tab at the top of the page) and do the necessary rewording to reflect the change. Wareh 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do that this evening :) ... Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done the move - now updating/correcting links ;) ...Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To my casual eye, it looks as if you've made the needed adjustments perfectly seamlessly. Thanks for your efforts! Wareh 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Think I've finished for now - updated all but the bot & historical links from 'what links here', & tweaked [hopefully to improve!] bits of the article itself. Cheers, Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Textual Figures

Thanks for the note. The original figures were based on a limited set taken from translatable textual differences on the Gospel of Matthew. The newer numbers are from the complete set for the entire New Testament. There are three independent sources for all or part of these translatable differences, with textual mapping: 1) www.bible-researcher.com, 2) the International Standard Version (and its website), and 3) the Comprehensive New Testament. I was only updating the figures because a contact at the Christian Booksellers Association had asked about the availability of the numbers for the complete New Testament instead of the Matthew sample. He said the Matthew sample numbers didn't give a complete picture for the translations he deals with, and he was correct. The other day I did not finish the updates, and plan to do so this Sunday. The deviation rate is the percentage of 14992 translatable differences between the Greek, Latin, and Syriac text-forms as they relate to the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. The numbers show the New American Standard as the closest to the Nestle-Aland 27, and the King James Version as the furthest from the Nestle-Aland 27(which would be expected since it was based on a different textual family). The paraphrase rate is based on the percentage of those deviations which do not agree completely with ANY text type. Those numbers show the King James as the least paraphrased and the Living Bible as the most (again, as would be expected). There is nothing novel about these numbers at all. If you want to test the numbers, I'd suggest counting any given translation against any ten deviations listed on any of the above listed sources (I know two are currently on-line, and I've been told that the third will be online soon). Your own statistical sample will not be as exact as the complete count, but would loosely correspond regardless. Here is the table I'm updating to Wikipedia. Feel free to test the numbers yourself.

Translation Paraphrase Rate UBS4 Deviation Rate KJV 3.14% 56.36% NKJ 3.52% 54.85% ASV 6.18% 17.43% DRA 6.46% 41.07% NAS 8.53% 17.16% NAU 9.25% 17.91% MRD 9.96% 50.18% RSV 10.29% 21.56% ESV 11.57% 18.35% NET 16.35% 21.14% HCS 16.70% 18.78% NRS 16.88% 19.25% NIV 19.78% 27.72% NAB 20.09% 17.85% JNT 20.49% 26.68% NJB 22.71% 28.25% TEV 27.49% 32.58% REB 28.00% 30.15% NLT 33.09% 35.66% TLB 38.35% 47.68%

Since these numbers were taken from nearly 15,000 translatable differences and can be approximately reproduced from any given sample on several possible sources, I'm not sure the judgment of being "unscientific" is an accurate one. However, if you have any suggestions on how to avoid such a perception, please let me know.

Also, since these numbers merely quantify what nearly ANY translation comparison site would indicate for both accurate and paraphrase relations, there is, again, nothing novel at all. Again, I would suggest checking any of your own sources. They will certainly show the same relationship listed here -- between the New American Standard (NAS), Revised English Bible (REB), and The Living Bible (TLB), the NAS is most accurate, followed by REB, followed by TLB. The NAS is least paraphrased, followed by REB, followed by TLB as most paraphrased. The relationships for any three you pick here will show up in the same or very close sequences on any site that list them.

I would invite you to test any sequence for yourself and please tell me if there is any resource at all that will give a different sequence.

Best,

Tim 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

More Text Discussion

Wareh,

I’ve changed the format on the King James Version page and the New Revised Standard Version page, with links to Michael Marlowe’s translatable differences in the New Testament (which include NA27). Please let me know if that at least seems better to you.

Although the treatment of real numbers appears absurd to you, you can reproduce them yourself. Just pick up any version and count any sample from Marlowe’s list (although not complete, it lists thousands). Hybridized readings are obvious, and since you have a knowledge of Greek you’ll see that his list is sound and reflects similar lists in Greek (such as the apparatus for NA27, UBS4, Pierpont-Robinson, and the comparison edition of the Westcott and Hort). As you’ll recall, I invited you to show ANY source that would disagree with the sequences these numbers represent. Instead of doing so, you simply threatened to have the numbers deleted. You can, of course, do so – but it would be disingenuous in the extreme since you did not even attempt to check any statistical sample you wished. Again, check it out. Please show me any source that creates different sequences for accuracy and dynamic equivalence. If you have to search less than ten sites before you find a difference, I’d be shocked. I’m trying to work with you, here, for the sake of the Encyclopedia. Threats without any attempt to check the sources I provided doesn’t help me work with you, and doesn’t help the accuracy of this site. If the APPEARANCE of absurdity is what we need to avoid, then I’ll work with you to make sure that others don’t fall into the misapprehension that you did from the numbers. I accept your own reaction as empirical evidence for how someone COULD react. But a reaction is not the same as actually checking it out. Check it out, and THEN react. I do agree, however, that using the New Testament as an indicator for a dynamic equivalency rate represents only a statistical sample of 25% of the Bible. But hard numbers have been based on far smaller samplings than 25%. For your first point – as far as agreement is concerned, the translations themselves agree with the kinds of differences represented by the lists compiled by Marlowe, the ISV, and the COM NT. A simple review of several translations against Marlowe’s list would bear that out, and the ISV and COM NT did their own translation maps against the text forms. Again, I invite you to check it out for yourself. The numbers are more than the UBS, because the UBS itself contains only a partial list. I believe it was around 1400. The NA27 has a far greater number. Marlowe also has a far greater number, and lists the editions he derived them from. And yes, the NRSV does indeed deviate 18% of the time. Again, please pick any random sample from Marlowe’s list and check it out. If you do 60 of them, in 10 cases the NRSV will either agree with a different reading or demonstrate a hybridized one. If you really are incredulous – then do the count yourself. You say that “any such list would be easy to refute.” You don’t need to refute an entire list. Just check out any sample for yourself and you’ll end up with a similar percentage. Specifically, the NRSV deviates 1197 times out of 6219 NA27 readings, with 202 of those deviations being hybridized readings and 995 firm agreement with a different text form. The translatable differences represent 6219 NA27 readings, against 6219 Pierpont-Robinson comparisons (some agree and some disagree), 3047 Minority Greek readings, 504 readings from ancient translations (such as the Vulgate and the Peshitta). Those total 15989 selections that were part of the COM NT study, which did not disagree with the items also selected by Marlowe on his site or the ISV on theirs.

For your second point – the paraphrase rate is based on hybridized readings. Again, I invite you to compare the NRSV with Marlowe’s list and you will find that it does not clearly agree 1/6th of the time, and that about 1/6th of those instances are paraphrased or hybridized readings. Out of any 36 selections that you pick from the list, approximately 6 of them will not agree and one of those will be paraphrased or hybridized. Those hybridizations are a statistical sample for the paraphrase rate as a whole. If 1/6th of all textual deviations cannot be perfectly mapped to any identifiable text form, then the paraphrase rate as a whole is higher than another translation in which only 1/30th of deviations could not be mapped. I agree that it is a no-brainer to expunge these numbers. That is why I invited you to do more than a no-brainer, and actually do a statistical sample for yourself. In the mean time I will also do as YOU have asked and pull the different sources together for an article. Hopefully both of us can avoid no-brainers and actually help the Encyclopedia instead of merely wiping things out because we don’t want to write an article (me) or do a separate statistical sample (you). If we both do what the other asks, we’ll probably do the best for the Encyclopedia as a whole. Is that fair?

I won’t be back online until Sunday.

PS -- I just got your latest note and do not have time to rewrite this one before I leave -- but I DO want to work with you here for what's best for the Encyclopedia. The numbers DO sequence the translations for accuracy and dynamic vs formal equivalence comparisons in exactly the same way as would be found on other sites. The only difference is that they use numbers based on actual textual comparisons, instead of loose judgments. Still -- since the numbers agree with those loose judgments, those loose judgments do seem to have the validity the numbers themselves demonstrate.

Best,

Tim 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Updates

Wareh,

I've made some updates to the King James Version, New King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard, and Revised Standard Version. The textual basis pertains only to the New Testament at this time, although it would be safe to put something like "Masoretic Text, with some Septuagint influence" on most of them for the Old Testament and "Septuagint, with some Vulgate influence" on the Apocrypha. The only questionable translations would be the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version, which are much less influenced by the Septuagint than others, such as the English Standard Version (Isaiah 7:14 is normally a good pointer on the degree of LXX in a translation, with "virgin" for LXX "parthenos" and "young woman" for Masoretic "almah"). I think for those two it might be best to say something like "Masoretic Text, with some Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint influence." Anyhow, please give it a look and let me know how it looks before I do the rest. My only concern is the lack of a metrical basis for the descriptions. They seem to hang out there like a subjective statement instead of an objective measure. But if subjectivity scares people less than objectivity, I can go with it until a good metrics description can go up.

PS -- how can we make the Flesch Kincaid levels show up? I've noticed that someone else put most of the numbers in there, and I've tried to get them to show up on a couple, but they aren't visible. The numbers I've seen on there are consistent with what's online in other places -- and close to what I've come up with on my own readability tests in Microsoft Word.

Tim 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wareh -- instead of cluttering your page, I've put a long post on my page with a question at the end. Thanks.

Tim 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirata

I hope you realise that Kirata is not one people but many different peoples. There was no one "Kirata" kingdom. Kirata Kingdom itself is badly defined. I request you to restore the Kirata article to its original state. The correct and standard spelling is Kirata, in any case. Chaipau 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Iaso

I haven't looked at the edit history of Iaso much, but I certainly noticed the anon making edits there. As he or she is being disruptive and demanding that information be added, while that information is essentially a misread synthesis of information, I think a case can be made at WP:AN (hopefully, anyway). This user will continue to troll and POV-push otherwise. I was wondering if you could help make a case, as you may be more familiar with the Iaso article.--C.Logan 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Wareh 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New World Translation

Wareh, the New World Translation is turning into a puzzle to categorize. I rather generously udated the info box to "Dynamic Equivalence" but even the sample text in the info box are more paraphrased than the Living Bible. For instance, "God's active force" instead of "wind" or "spirit" is impossible to quantify. Also, John 3:16 "God loved the world so much..." The Greek word for "so" cannot possibly be understood as "so much" but is instead "in this manner" or "thus." Also, the controversial nature of the version doesn't leave any middle ground for a neutral POV. To Jehovah's Witnesses it's the most literally accurate version ever made. To Christians it is unacceptably biased and not literal by any stretch of the imagination. How do you put that into an info box? Since "Dynamic" is somewhere between "most literal" and "unacceptably paraphrased" I put that in there -- but it's not an accurate or acceptable representation in EITHER pov. Have any suggestions? Tim 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken about Template:Polytonic. Liddell and Scott rightly note the sense:

to such an extent, so, so much, so very, so excessively, καλὸς οὕτω Il.3.169; πρυμνόθεν οὕτως so entirely, A.Th.1061 (anap.), cf. Th. 2.47, X.Cyr.1.3.8; οὕτως τι Ar.Av.63: freq. folld. by ὡς or ὥστε, Hdt.1.32, X.An.7.4.3, etc.: sts. the relat. ὅς takes the place of ὥστε, κρήνη οὕτω δή τι ἐοῦσα πικρή, ἣ ..κιρνᾷ (i. e. ὥστε κιρνᾶν) Hdt.4.52; οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτω μῶρος ὃς θανεῖν ἐρᾷ S.Ant.220; τίς δ' οὕτως ἄνους ὃς ..; Ar. Ach.736, cf. D.8.44; also δυσχείμερος αὕτη ἡ ..χώρη οὕτω δή τί ἐστι, ἔνθα (i. e. ὥστε ἐνταῦθα) τοὺς μὲν ὀκτὼ τῶν μηνῶν ἀφόρητος οἷος γίνεται κρυμός Hdt.4.28: sts. no connecting Particle is used, αἱ [κεφαλαὶ] οὕτω δή τι ἰσχυραί, μόγις ἂν λίθῳ παίσας διαρρήξειας so excessively hard, you could scarcely break them, Id.3.12.

Human language is complex and messy. If it were possible to measure accuracy so rigidly as you suggest with such unsupported claims as "cannot possibly," then computers would be as good at translating as well-read human beings. If that "cannot possibly" is figuring into your numbers and measurements, then that's a sign of a flaw in your methodology. Obviously any numbers or sequence should be determined objectively and not in deference to opinions and claims that can't be defended. But if you start with incorrect premises about what is "literally accurate," then, garbage in, garbage out. Wareh 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wareh -- my methodology is to use sources as fairly as possible. That does not make me (or you) infallible. I would suggest that it be more constructive for you to answer the question at hand rather than to find a single chance to insult someone. Here is the question -- on a subject that is highly charged between two opposing camps that cannot compromise with each other, exactly HOW do you state a neutral POV in an info box? That's it. I don't have to be perfect to honestly have a conundrum here, and if you'd slow down from reflexive crassness long enough to answer that question, I'd appreciate it. You have time to formulate a polite answer, since I won't be back online until Saturday night. Best Tim 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you perceived that as impolite; it's my best attempt at a polite answer. The answer is, "Based on the example you cite, I'm pretty sure that if I sat down with my knowledge of Greek (far from infallible, but at least I routinely read books written in Ancient Greek with a reasonable level of undertanding), I would find it possible to defend, as perfectly literal, many of the translations that are being scored with such judgments as not-possibly-literal." Where's the insult? "Garbage in, garbage out"? It's just a true principle standing in the way of an accurate measure. The infobox should report valuable information. If the judgments about what constitutes "literalness" are collectively more valid than this particular one you mention, collectively valid enough to inspire confidence in the measure, then the infoboxes can report the results without fear. "To use sources as fairly as possible" is a nice slogan, but if it means "regarding as impossible translations given word-for-word in the most authoritative existing lexicon of Ancient Greek," then there's a problem. This is not meant personally. The only insult I see in the exchange here so far is the implicit insult in such judgments as "unacceptably paraphrased." The question is whether even less judgmental labels such as "freer" are based on rigorously thought-out methods; I don't know, as I haven't seen a list of all of the individual judgments (like "οὕτως must be translated by one of these 2 formulas to get a score of 100%"), but I do know that the only example you're giving me is mistaken. P.S. Giving the NWT a cursory glance (I'd never heard of it before today), I see that it's basically the KJV modernized with the occasional substitution of explanatory paraphrases of terms that are more Biblical English than plain English (e.g. "undeserved kindness" for "grace," "congregations" for "churches"). It's obviously quite literal on the whole, since it's basically word-for-word in the KJV/RSV tradition. From what I understood of your methodology (which, again, is little, since I haven't seen a list of the scoring criteria—are they secret? if so, we're back to the original research problem), I'm surprised this doesn't score as more literal than something like NJB or NEB. Wareh 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, what I was trying to convey is that Christians don't regard this as accurate and Jehovah's Witnesses do. My question remains unanswered. I'll repeat it: how do you fairly describe something from a neutral point of view in which there are no neutral points of view in an info box? Now, as you, I put it in the same category as the RSV, which was dynamic equivalent (i.e. "as literal as possible, as free as necessary"). I took the two extremes and cut them in the middle. No doubt neither side would agree, but that was the approach. If you don't like the NWT as an example, then please at least answer the question in general. Also, I've drilled down in Bauer and found an application for houtos in the third of four definitions, although I've not yet found a Christian translation that has done so for John 3:16. As for measures of concordance in translation, I gave you a link to a different source that had almost the identical sequence to the one I was looking at, and I believe we discussed four categories: Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, Free Translation, and Paraphrase -- with a list of what would go in each category. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Master's Seminary literal sequence or the classifications at the time -- and neither of those are secret. If you don't mind, again -- could you please answer the question? Neither of us have time to waste dancing around it, and I gave you the compliment of ASKING. Please do me the compliment of answering. Tim 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly confused what outstanding question you would like me to answer, which I am competent to answer. What confuses me is that you say "I put it in the same category," not "The impartial and non-OR algorithm put it in the same category." If there's a difference between the two statements, then none of the "paraphrase rate" numbers should appear in the encyclopedia. If the second formulation is accurate, then the number can be used without and reference to concerns like "Christians don't regard this as accurate"; "Christians" are not so monolithic anyway, and I'm sure a great number of Christians would differ. I'd still like to see a source for the constituent judgments. The only answer I have to any individual determination, after the previous discussions is, "Follow the algorithm that is impartial and not original research; let the chips fall where they may." If (I'm sorry if this shows some prejudice) mainstream scholarly translations are being labeled as "paraphrases," I think it's a problem. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are shown not to be as wrong in everything they've done as some people would have it, that seems a non-issue to me per se. Wareh 14:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, I have no data on the NWT other than the BeDuhn data that one of the contributors to the site is putting on the talk page. But it's so broad that it has almost everything listed as formal except the TEV. I can't find any Christian data on it other than utter dismissals. Neither the Master's Seminary nor the COM NT seemed concerned enough with it to even include it. So, I have a Jehovah's Witness source that puts it in the same category as the KJV, RSV, and NIV -- which are already listed as Formal, Dynamic, and Free. By "I put it into" I meant exactly that. Given the utter dismissal from one end (Christians) and the complete devotion to it on the other end (Jehovah's Witness) and the range of translations it was thrown into (already listed from Formal, Dynamic, to Free), the middle ground for a neutral POV would have to be somewhere around the RSV range -- Dynamic. This is the same problem as the reading levels. WHO is doing the analysis, on WHICH formula, from WHICH program? Even the same formula gives different answers depending on which program is processing it (which makes no sense to me, but that's what happens). The information in books and online that I research throws a range based on the terminology that the source happens to decide to use, and it's unfair to simply use anyone's terminology without seeing what other translations are being thrown by that same author in that category. To give another example -- the data from the Master's Seminary put the Message and Philips in the same category as the Living, which was already listed as a Paraphrase. Finding no other sources to contradict that grouping, I listed those as Paraphrases. Had I found other sources that listed Philips with the NJB, it perhaps could have gone into either Free or Paraphrase. But, let's say that another source listed it as Formal. Then there is a problem. And that's where the NWT falls. BeDuhn lists almost all of the versions he studied as formal! Using just him everything but the TEV and Living would have been listed as formal. Using just Jehovah's Witnesses, most versions would be dismissed in favor of the "most accurate" NWT. Using just Christians, the NWT would be dismissed. So -- for the info box it seems best to split the middle. That's been the whole question that I still need an answer to: when different sources contradict, is it fair in a neutral POV to split the middle, even when neither side would agree to a compromise? Tim 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now -- once again -- this is the ONLY question: when different sources contradict, is it fair in a neutral POV to split the middle, even when neither side would agree to a compromise? Tim 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a second question by this time -- why on earth is it so devilishly difficult to get a straight answer to a simple question? Tim 14:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think my answer to your question is, it sounds as if you have no reliable and verifiable source for labeling the NWT in this regard. You yourself point out how the data available to you is not useful in the confident discrimination it allows. Therefore, that part of the infobox should have nothing in it for the NWT. This answer seems like a no-brainer to me based on my understanding of what you're saying; if it's not clearly acceptable to you, then explain why not. (I have not seen any of these sources myself. Phrases such as "the DeBuhn data" are completely meaningless to me. I have nagging doubts that say that if I saw the "guts" of this operation, more issues along the lines of WP:SYN, WP:V, and WP:RS might emerge, and that if you were to give the due weight to all of these considerations, you might find yourself confronted with less of a "simple question" in a case like this.) I'd like to make another point, which I believe very strongly, and which the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV cannot fail to back up consistently: there can be no such thing as "Christian data." I'm going to hope that's just some kind of imprecise shorthand, because if there is actually anything "Christian" about any "data," then it is not neutral data. A scholarly source such as Bauer's lexicon is not a Christian source; if the data has been run through a Christian lens at any point between the Greek texts, scholarly tools like Bauer, etc., and the Wikipedia, then something very wrong has occurred (because if so, the label should read, percent agreement with the theological interpretations of such-and-such sect). Wareh 15:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The first three links didn't answer the question. The last did. I can't find ANY neutral sources for the NWT. Bruce Metzger is normally cited as a scholarly source -- but he's ALSO a Christian. His take on the NWT was "monstrous." Wallace is normally cited as a scholarly source -- but again, he's ALSO a Christian, and has nothing resembling neutrality to the NWT. The Jehovah's Witnesses consider it the "most accurate." And I really have no idea who this BeDuhn guy is other than what the people on the talk page are telling me. When normally scholastic sources have vicereal reactions to something, what do you do with them? If I read you correctly here, Metzger and Wallace can't be used, since they are Christian. And that leaves me with no reliable data at all. As it stands, I told the people on the talk page to the NWT that this wasn't a fighting issue with me. If they want to call it literal, fine. But I brought it up with you before I continued with other info boxes. It's kind of like the flat earth theory. You really can't FIND any neutral scholarly positions to the flat earth. And if I read you correctly, we can't use scholarly dismissals of a flat earth because they are not neutral to the position. Is that correct? Tim 15:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding my (and Wikipedia's) idea of neutral. A Christian scholar may make arguments on scholarly grounds free of religious prejudice. Otherwise, peer-reviewed scientific journals would have to disclose the religion, etc., of their authors. I agree that Bruce Metzger's "monstrous" does sound quite visceral (a context would be useful), but I assume that if he said it in print then it was backed up by some kind of better argument than religious prejudice (exactly as in your comparison example: the thoughts an astronomer might express on the flat-earth theory). However, I don't see how such criticisms can provide you with data for an infobox. Presumably, a Bible translation can be quite "literal" according to the criteria being consistently applied in such a comparative analysis, while nonetheless being reasonably criticizable as "monstrous" in some of its results. Obviously, "monstrosity," "right-thinkingness," etc., are even less susceptible to numerical measurement than "paraphrase rate." So, what do you do with such visceral judgments? Apparently, disregard them because (based on information you've provided so far) they are irrelevant judgments insofar as they have nothing to say about the variable being measured. If you can quote Metzger as saying "monstrously non-literal," still, unless it's the result of impartial comparative measurement of some kind, it might rate a quote in the text of the article, but it would be extremely deceptive to translate it into an infobox label in my opinion. I persist in thinking that WP:V is more relevant than you're allowing; when at Wikipedia I hear "what the people on the talk page are telling me" instead of "what I found in a book I checked out from the library, which got very favorable reviews in scholarly journals," that raises a red flag for me. My question for you is, how much more of the "data" presented in these infoboxes is based on such a loose and internally disagreeing mass of confusingly sourced opinion as you seem to be sketching in this case? Wareh 15:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How much in the others? None, actually. I haven't had this problem after we settled on the four categories to put everything into (and categories themselves are used drastically differently in different sources -- Comfort has Dynamic as more paraphrastic than Free Translations!). When I hit this particular problem I wrote you looking for some guidance. I can't find any scholars who are even willing to measure it along with other translations. I don't expect another problem like this except perhaps Joseph Smith's changes to the King James. From what I've been able to find on this BeDuhn source so far, he's being dismissed by other scholars as well as the NWT. Metzger wouldn't even include the translation in his book on translations, but instead devoted a series of separate articles to the NWT. Please understand, I'm not the one introducing BeDuhn. I'm trying to deal with another person doing so, and I'm trying to be as generous as possible and then move on. The only information I can find on my end is utter dismissal of it -- which really isn't helpful to me when it comes to measuring it. The whole article is a mess, to be honest, and it's sucked up way too much time (and yours) on something that would have been five minutes for me and none for you had it been virtually any other version. Tim 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this isn't a typical case. All the more reason why you should act decisively not to undermine whatever credibility the existing categories have by allowing such an exception! Again, a comparative infobox is meaningless if the criteria (of sources, of methods) are not completely consistent. "I can't find any scholars" means that, according to WP:RS, there is no material ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need help reverting additions of material without proper sources in this article, let me know specifically (or, if it's persistent, try WP:AN). Wareh 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wareh -- thanks. Not sure what to make of the article as a whole, since BeDuhn is so integral to it. After toning down some potentially antisemitic wording in there I need to move away from it for a while until I can find out more about BeDuhn. Til then, I'll finish with the info boxes on translations covered by Master's, Comfort, Metzger, etc. I'll let you know when I run against another puzzle (and I'll limit the question to the question so we don't drive each other nuts again). Thanks again. Tim 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bekker 1831 page184.jpg

Hi, could you also tag Image:Bekker 1831 page184.jpg (and any others) with {{PD-release}} to make it PD status absolutely beyond doubt in all countries; then they will be automatically moved to Commons so they can be used on projects like Wikisource. Also, as you are interested in Aristotle, perhaps you could help us over at s:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Categories. Cheers, John Vandenberg 08:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the tip. That's the only one of mine where it's PD and I did the scan. But I have a lot of photographs of a Plato manuscript facsimile; when I share these, I'll try to determine whether Template:PD-release applies. Wareh 14:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" edit

Ooh, that was a very bad mistake on my part. I was unaware of what I had done. You were right to draw it to my attention. Lima (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle article

Hello - thanks for the further constructive work on the intro. Only one thing I reinstated 'His metaphysics has formed the basis of Catholic theology since medieval times, and many aspects of his philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today.

Reasons: 1. Catholic theology is hardly parochial, as you state. 2. It is not true, that Aristotle's metaphysics underpins Judaism, and Islam. It is well known that Islam decisively rejected the insights of Aristotle. Certainly there is no equivalent of Aquinas in the Islamic tradition or the Judaic. Quite the reverse. It may be that there are 'theological traditions' in Islam and Judaism which are inspired by Aristotle. But you should provide references for these. And in any case these traditions would not be in the mainstream, unlike in Catholicism and, to a lesser extent, non-Roman but Catholic Christian traditions. edward (buckner) (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PS E.g. an article here by Kennedy-day, discusses the legacy of Aristotle in Islamic philosophy - i.e. almost nil. "It is accurate to say, however, that Aristotelianism as a school of philosophy in the Islamic world found no Muslim successors after the death of Ibn Rushd." There is some evidence that Aristotle's had some influence among Jewish philosophers. Whether among theologians is a different matter which I will have to research. edward (buckner) (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved these important questions to the Aristotle talk page and responded there. Wareh (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nav Box

The nav box should only appear on articles that are listed on the template. Hence the "Part of a series on..." at the top. The portal link should appear on Chritianity-related articles that are not part of the series. This is consistent with nav box usage throughout WP. Also, there is now the footer {{Christianityfooter}} which being added and is 100% identical to the old nav box which is overused right now. I will revert your revision, please help with the change over. Best. -- SECisek (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Helios article

Thank you Wareh for your time and effort. But before I write more, please let me know what exactly you mean by "the text of Manetho's Apotelesmatica... because I have used Manetho's Aegyptiaca Athang1504 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But it's impossible to know what text you used because you have not made any references that the reader can follow or verify. My suggestion would be, if you feel there is ancient evidence that should be considered in the article, quote it and cite it properly on the article's talk page. The fact that in this edit you cite Angelopoulos, Athanasios G., New Lexicon of the Greek Mythology, gives the impression of a conflict of interest, and (to quote from that Wikipedia guideline) "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page." Wareh (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cologne Cathedral

Many thanks for finding the origin of the quote. I tried googling it with no success. This reference desk has been wonderful for desktop research. I used to use the New York Public library on-line service, but found it very haphazard. When I revise "A Yankee Engineer Abroad: Part II" I'll probably be able to footnote somethings which went unresolved in the first edition. Thanks again.LShecut2nd (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. Wareh (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Metaphysics (Aristotle)

Hi. I have made extensive revisions to the Metaphysics article. See what you think, interested in any comments or changes. I was rather drastic on the 'overview' section. edward (buckner) 14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Iesous, redux

Wareh, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia the last few days, but I'll try to address this. At first glance, plagiarism does look like a potential issue at Liber sine nomine once more. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. After Doug's latest edit at Liber sine nomine, the description of Letter 4 reads: "This letter, written around October or November of 1352, is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial there." At [5], we find "Letter 4 is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial."

Letter 5 reads: "One of Petrarch’s favorite rhetorical devices was the metonymy and here he uses a synecdoche, a type of metonymy, when he describes his frustration with Biblical words and phrases." At [6], we find: "One of Petrarch’s favorite rhetorical devices is the metonymy. In Letter 5 he uses a synecdoche, a type of metonymy."

Not all of the material is plagiarized, I think, but the parts that are original with Doug are not of very high quality. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Please note User:Douglas Coldwell and Special:Contributions/Douglas_Coldwell. I found this username accidentally while doing a Google search for "orithya amazon". There's a lot of stuff in those sandboxes... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

De mulieribus claris as a source for everything conceivable

An edit to Aphrodite by User:Doug Coldwell showed up on my watchlist, citing De mulieribus claris with no reservations as a source for some rather spectacular claims. I reverted it - but I see that this is not a single incident, the guy is Boccaccio-ing up the place. I see you've had some dealings with this user before - do you know how best to address this? Haukur (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer, no, I do not know. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata, which was my idea about what to do about the latest rash of Boccaccio-based nonsense, but it's the least successful AfD I've ever nominated. The problem is precisely that he's using real facts (even if only literary facts), but without any understanding and only to promote his own agenda (I don't know how far you've dug into his agenda, but it includes the assertion that Petrarch composed the New Testament from scratch). I certainly support reverting his edits aggressively, as he has no idea what he's talking about and uses poor sources, or else uses good sources very inappropriately. You are certainly correct that Boccaccio is not a valid source for an assertion about any aspect of Greek or Roman culture, and that what B. says belongs, at most, as a short mention in a section on "Reception." Moreover, it has been demonstrated that much of the garbage he's adding is plagiarized. Unfortunately my experience has shown that Wikipedia policies are not well adapted to dealing with such an editor, whose activity creates a huge workload for those editors who (incompletely) keep his edits from damaging the quality of the encyclopedia. He should be banned, but at this point I'll be surprised if he gets an official slap on the wrist. (He also works under such other names as User:Douglas Coldwell, where he's preparing a lot more garbage in sandboxes in order to harm Wikipedia articles.) Please let me know if I can be of help in any particular matter; while I don't have energy equal to the Doug Coldwell situation, I would like to help if I can. Wareh 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking some more into this and I'm stunned. I had no idea how deep this ran. He has more than a hundred sandboxes for cooking his broth in. He has a "Petrarch Code" based on the assumption that Petrarch knew 20th century English. And he has a lily white block log. I see this has been going on for quite some time but I rarely deal with classical or Renaissance topics so I hadn't noticed before. The reason this can go on so long is apparently that superficially he looks exactly like a good editor. He can format articles, make pretty little footnotes, cite policy and he seems generally friendly and looks like a nice guy. I'm sure he is a nice guy. Combine this with the inclusionist, get-along philosophy of Wikipedia and we have a situation that is incredibly hard to deal with. Haukur (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got it. The more independent minds aware of the issues, the better. Cheers, Wareh 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Manetho's Aegyptiaca

Please see my talk page.Athang1504 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)