User talk:Pmanderson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new edition provides a satisfactory mechanism for recognizing one's own edits on one's watchlist. But I still am not certain what to put on my page.

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

[to which I add Septentrionalis]

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also Template:Welcome


| Image:Smile.png | image:teeth.png | image:sad.png | image:smile_eye.png | image:tongue.png | image:cry.png | image:shade.png | Image:Rwl.gif |-

Thanks for your edits to Banausos. I encourage you to continue editing the article itself—boldly—rather than just discussing its failings in the Talk page. The article has some strange perspectives on things which would benefit from your obviously solid understanding of the subject. (By the way, you seem to have forgotten to sign your last contribution to the Talk page.) --Macrakis 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged Septentrionalis 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the page Greeks and its history? I think your perspective would be valuable. There are a couple of Greek nationalists there who are (from my point of view at least) being disruptive, and an outside eye would be useful. Besides the hypernationalist comments on everything, there are also some technical errors (e.g. I don't think omothriskos is an ancient word). Thanks --Macrakis 16:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, omaimon and omoglosson are in Herodotus, quoting the Athenians negotiating with the Spartans, and they mention common gods, too, but not with the word "omothriskon", which as far as I can tell never appears in the classical corpus (Perseus search). Anyway, the big issue here is the constant insertion of this nationalist stuff which makes Greekness something narrowly defined and exclusive. Did you see the comment by one of the nationalists about Vlachs and Arvanites being Greeks originally? --Macrakis 00:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Greeks. Yes, of course talking about the changes over the millenia might upset the narrow-minded, but... what is one to do? You might want to take a look at User Talk:Charonite to see some of the, um, interesting points of view here. --Macrakis 03:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • FYI, it appears that Charonite is the same as -- see edit history of User talk:Charonite. I guess he decided to drop anonymity and join in discussion, which is a good thing. But he still thinks he has a monopoly on the truth, alas. --Macrakis 16:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I've reverted your edit on the Rho in the table. The character that you say looks like a capital Rho with a smooth breathing looks to me like a capital Rho with a rough breathing (and did so before the recent change to the polytonic template that has radically changed the default font). I haven't been able to come across a capital Rho with smooth breathing, which is perhaps not surprising, as this would never (hardly ever?) appear as an initial letter.rossb 19:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No personal page[edit]

Funny thing that you don't want a personal page, and the point of your reason (that it makes your watchlist easier to read) totally evades me. Please elaborate on this latter things since it might me a shortcoming in the MediaWiki software that needs to be fixed. If it is simply your way of saying that you prefer to not be talked about, then tell me that in clear, it's much more understandable. Nixdorf 20:47, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Oh now I get it... I think it is indeed possible to color your ID, but the best thing would be for MediaWiki to support some special emphasis for articles edited by the current user, like red color, large font, blinking text or whatever. Nixdorf 21:36, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
Easy, peasy. Go to your Preferences, set your signature to [[User:Whatever|<span style="color:DarkRed;">Joe Bloggs </span>]]. Choose whatever colour you like & set the 'raw signatures' option! - Pete C 02:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Though your change on metrication was correct, the reasoning was wrong: "Both definitions of "mile" were by statute." Neither of those definitions was by statute in the United States. However, any 5,280 foot mile, including those two based on feet defined as an exact fraction of a meter as well as others based on feet determined by independent standards for a yard, is a "statute" mile—the statute referred to is one of the 11th? (give or take a couple) year of the reign of Elizabeth I. Gene Nygaard 16:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Greek-related nonsense[edit]

Take a look at Magna Graecia. In desperate need of your expert attention. I know a lot of the stuff in there is wrong, but I'm sure you know more about what is right. --Macrakis 21:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does {{polytonic}} do? Does it make polytonic fonts show up in all browsers? --Jpbrenna 07:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading the Old Oligarch[edit]

My impression is that much of the discussion on slaves in Greece reads the Old Oligarch at face value. But much of what he is saying strikes me as sarcasm, e.g. you can't hit slaves in the street because citizens are just as badly dressed. Your take on this? --Macrakis 14:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done some light cleaning of slavery in Greece, but would appreciate your review -- the sockpuppeteer has been fiddling again. --Macrakis 23:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now we have the Albanian ethnomythographers active here... interested in intervening? --Macrakis 16:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Specifically Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France; Cleopatra VII of Egypt. The key word is "pre-emptively," and this case clearly falls under that guideline. john k 20:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani literature cleanup[edit]

Saw your message on the talk page -- would love your help if you are interested in the topic. I am not territorial about this stuff at all. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 15:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Re your post just now on moving my vote
    • Query - how's that different from what I did, or better yet: Why? I thought putting the two in seperate but adjacent sub-headings was a good way to poll both questions, while allowing the Comment heading to be organized as well. (Don't really care, since I'm withholding my main vote pending intervention I mobilized last evening — I contacted about half-a-dozen Native or Japanese savvy editor/admins that should be able to settle the issues of fact down quickly. Someone should have poured such oil on troubled waters sooner. I'm just embarrased by my gaff which seemed to reinflame it. See User Talk:Mr Tan to see the babysitting I've been doing. If you are unaware of it, since you looked in on this 'abortion' take a look a W:RfC\Mr Tan as well and give me advice. The kid may be more trouble than he's worth, but if we can direct his energy to new writing and immature (stubs) article development, he and Wiki can both gain. Still, high maintenance!!! Thanks.

[[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Surely you can say more about yourself than fits on a blank user page! Not humility problem in YOUR family, save perhaps an overabundance?????? LOL Frank

[[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima islands[edit]

I will appreciate if you can read my reason why I oppose to your suggestion, and I would appreciate if you can come to a one-to-one discussion with me concerning this case. Thanks. Mr Tan 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you say like this, how are you going to tell what you mean as "Tsushima" between Tsushima Islands, Tsushima city, Tsushima province (not withstanding the content plus description)? Look at Tsushima city as well, for the city itself is the entire Tsushima Islands. The city is refered in wikipedia as Tsushima, Nagasaki, and the Islands itself is also part of the Nagasaki prefecture. If you insist on the move, how are you going to answer on Tsushima, Nagasaki? Merge the content? I don't think that it is feasible. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) on why. Mr Tan 16:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And More Tsushima Islands[edit]

re: your paragraph on the Tsushima compromise you proposed.

"Comment: I would expect a random reference to Tsushima to be to the place; and to this place. For example, the original Britannica stub ( calls it simply Tsushima. (Even conversations on the Russo-Japanese War might well use Tsushima of the place, and Battle of Tsushima for the battle; and they are not random.) As for the other entries for 'Tsushima', three are coterminous with Tsushima (the city, the prefecture, and the former province) and two (the straits and the battle) are adjacent to it. An italic headnote to these might well be a good idea anyway; as would be a cross-note to the other two places. That leaves two stubs and one not yet created article - which is not many. Septentrionalis 16:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
  • which stubs are you refering to (need of)? And what article? The 'Straits' is where I first ran afoul of Mr Tan over the map I inserted from Tsushima Islands article (was singular then); The Battle of is the project I was working on as a major expansion — it's been called the single most important battle of Modern Times, of the Century, since Trafalgar (respectively by three noted historians) and is so to speak the horse I rode in on.
  • I would assume that the Tsushima City and Tsushima province + prefecture would be handled by redirects; which is my suspicion why JBell changed his vote on the compromise in that it would create a doubly circular reference... (I'm still trying to decode Mr Tans arguements, tho' his refernce to the naming convention WOULD BE VALID, WERE they non-coterminus as you note.) to disambigulation then back to main article. In any event, Don't see any new articles in any of that. Or did I miss something?
  • One other major expansion other than this embarrasing cat fight, and I'm on that one already. Just need to learn how to use paintshop pro to build some nice battle maps! (See Battle of Jutland for my quality target.) Something that was less important than the BoT!
  • Lastly, I thought Strait and Battle were normally handled in the See Also Block? The intro mentions the strait as well, (or did <G>,) or should.
[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 06:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • More on the above. The articles that are coterminal as you say, are all very brief, and should be merged into whatever main article title results, IMHO. Would it be 'Cricket' as a parlimentary tactic of ruthless daring to place mergeto templates within and nominate them concurrently on W:Vfd, to get some numbers to over come these overly testosterone equipped individuals to cease their little war once and for all? I say this occurs to me because a lower grade edit war is also going on in those articles, and none of them really have any significant length. So Tsushima is a county seat, in American Parlence — shurg, Hardly reason for a seperate article.
  • I think concurrently nominating the Tsushima Islands arty to mergeto Tsushima and Vfd would settle the matter down nicely since both proposals (i.e. the second being your proposed compromise) will be before a large number of more responsible editors — PLUS get the article stabilized by taking it out of these hotheads hands. I can't see they've stopped even as the vote sits waiting resolution. I wish I had such spare time!
  • I'm 99% sure the 'Vfd mergest elements', Plus noting that it will help ending the edit war would result in a Vfd vote of one monolythic article, and remove those childrens playgrounds in one fell swoop.

Thoughts on this bold action? [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 20:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A grand merger, while not a bad idea abstractly, is exactly what some participants in the argument fear. Therefore I think this will cause more trouble than it is worth. I would let the present poll play out, and hope that either there will be consensus or a move to compromise. Septentrionalis 01:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You left the message and phone number, but no one picked up!!! LOL [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 01:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thats understandable, but it is really wise to let this kind of thing mug unsuspecting and well meant, adults? It was just a thought, and seems manageable in this case in particular. Perhaps their fears would serve to teach a lesson, if fullfilled. I'm not crazy about the idea, but the shear magnitude of the wasted time is making me crazy about the inefficiency of it all. I'm not generally in agreement with the mergests in Vfd, though now and again...

Has there ever been any discussion about having the server (Bots) police the number of edits per day per user and per day total with an automatic cap? That 70+ Changes in three days boggles my mind, and 300 in a month are nearly as bad in what is still a short article! IIRC, I looked at it first circa 28 May, and if it's 25% longer now, I'll buy you a case of your favorite Beverage! Look for yourself -- The changes toward the end are my single edit. Everything else is up in the header -- This is where it was frozen/unfrozen (to now) Click Comparison It's hard to be certain, but length wise I see little if any growth.

ttfn, thanks for the advice.
[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 02:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tsushima lies in the Straits of Tsushima, in which the Battle of Tsushima was fought seems more appropriate. Septentrionalis 14:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Good try, but wouldn't match well established names in a whole lot of history books. THOSE two names are very unambiguous, which is why the whole schmele over singular/plural is so tragically wasteful. Even other authorative sources are inconsistant, and the Japan Times has used both, though I've seen no analysis of which predominates. Shrug. When does this vote thing expire?
    • Re: More generally, appeals to a wider forum don't actually seem to be working very well at the moment. For example I have an 1-on-1 deadlock in Democratic peace theory which I have asked for help and received none. (I am about to make a statement of dispute on the talk page; this may take a little while.) Septentrionalis 01:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SO finish it, and I'll give it a go. You came when I called for firehoses (actually you were a 'listed contributor', so you missed that message, but the principles the same. Be glad to take a look. (I haven't quite figured out how to use the village pump; seems every time I start to look in there, someone drops a message on me. Where's it posted?)

And... (I'm afraid I'm missing this one. Seems to be a fragment without the lead in clauses. (I hate bureaucracy - I can never spell it w/o looking it up!) Did you only grab p/o something in the cut buffer?
Here's what I thimk you are referring:

"Has there ever been any discussion about having the server (Bots) police the number of edits per day per user and per day total with an automatic cap? That 70+ Changes in three days boggles my mind, and 300 in a month are nearly as bad in what is still a short article! IIRC, I looked at it first circa 28 May, and if it's 25% longer now, I'll buy you a case of your favorite Beverage! Look for yourself -- The changes toward the end are my single edit. Everything else is up in the header -- This is where it was frozen/unfrozen (to now) Click Comparison ( It's hard to be certain, but length wise I see little if any growth."
    • quite so, and a Request for mediation. Is there some other bureaucracy I am overlooking, or what? Septentrionalis 01:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I gather this is to my last post, which alas, I cannot see!)

RU You're asking me about bureaucracy's options here? That's good! LOL. Hey, I'm just the new kid on the block that made a wopper of a late night mistake trying to do the honorable thing. I'm trying to B-sit "Mr '15 y.o.' Tan" too, but that's a Dad thing. My kids are same age, which is what he blurted out (See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mr_Tan (Para09 + Addtional comments after). In any event, the only really reliable comment page I've seen is the W:VfD, which has a good 40-50 editors making comments faithfully. I can only take it a few nights a week myself, but there is a regular group that patrols it faithfully.

As to the rest, I haven't an axe to grind therein, but need to fix up that paragraph I wrote once the vote is over. I put the Inuse template on it, which no one respected, so I probably ought to make the change now, but that would violate my own principles. Nasty little thingz! I just can't figure out how to do anymore to get the three and a half kids to cease fire. Who they are is evident between the talk and the history.
I'll take a look in your article; but do drop me an note after you've documented the dispute and I'll review that as well. Perhaps you just need to wait until schools out — Finals and all have distracted Mel Etitis badly when this vote was forced by the Japanese, rightly so I think in this case. He's a good guy, but those three or four have had to have him pulling his hair out. Shudder!
[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 03:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Got your alert - will look soon, but am finishing a message to some additional troops to help for the Edit War, as well as advise me on Mr Tan; a matter of some urgency to me... see Link (any heading with date codes in title like '050616'/17,21 etc.) for hours of 'why'.
  • Been thinking your compromise is contraindicated by the other polities having Tsushima name, so suspect I'm going to follow JBell and rechange vote thereon to oppose mildly or neutral. Want to review the arguements again now that I've snooped some of the content on Tsushima (disambig) at length.
  • How did you get into this mess anyway (Tsushima Islands)... just as a roving editor? Admin? The histories so long, I just remember seeing you 'way down' on the list of people I contacted when I put on the 'High Dudgeon Suit' saturday (when should have been catching up household chores!). I can't believe I made that silly interpretation (leap off cliff) mistake, is my emotional self-image has me involved, but then trying to mentor Tan would probably have involved me periphially regardless of whether our editorial paths had crossed this second time — the first is in the W:Rfc/Mr Tan, which is what I'm agonizing over trying to figure whether to add, or not. Amazingly, he went four days without realizing my polite posting had demolished my edit as any kind of authority — I had to reason it all through (twice) on his talk these last several days before he grasped it — despite my comments when I found his source material! Don't know what to do about him. He could be a tremendous Wiki-asset at starting missing articles, but some sanction keeping him off active team editted projects seems clearly in order. I'm too much of the 'new kid' herein, to know what, if any, options there are. Sigh!
[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • btw Why don't you redo your signature since you are totally aliasing anyway and want no home page, so your talk page is the automatic link, or are you deliberately using the 'redlink' as a personal way of finding yourself 'quickly'? Just wondering. I use my user page as a scratch pad combo file folder cum todo list. Finding one totally blanked is a bit startling, even if you are modest! fab
  • OK - I've given a first reading to both, but sketchily so. Was a busy afternoon. Have dinner engagement so tonights out. Will see what I can comprehend at length in next two days. What does Mel Say? ttfn 22:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I'm afraid I'm not competent in this field. It certainly doesn't sound POV to claim that China left the Soviet bloc -- though it sounds strange to my ear to say that it created a third bloc (PR China, Albania, and North Korea?). By the way, you claim in your comments that peer-reviewed journals are unusual in political science. Yet a quick web search finds that at least one academic political science department weighs refereed/peer-reviewed articles quite heavily in their internal evaluation procedures: [1]. It does sound as though the other editor is finding it hard to step outside his POV, but what else is new here on the wonderful Wikipedia.... --Macrakis 07:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... was a bit sure about doing the editing unsoliceted, but I felt that it might be better coming from someone who is not an expert on the subject and had not got involved with the debate on the talk page Robdurbar 08:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord De La Warr[edit]

Stop it. Proteus (Talk) 14:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


since the links just lead to descriptions of the modern cities. They can be linked, but preferably with some context, imho. but don't lurk, add them back in, no problem. dab () 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I saw your comment on the talk page for classical republic and note your displeasure of a republic meaning "without a monarch as head". Your completely right. Before you joined up, I had an article on classical republicanism which was deleted by British Wikipedians. They couldn't stand an informative article on classical republicanism which undermined their ideology and ganged up to delete the article. The definition of a true republic is here at Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic. This should dispel all and any confusion of the term. User SimonP couldn't stand the article so then he wrote "mixed government" "Classical republic" and the "republic article" all to mean the same thing.

When you read that Classical definition of a republic, the ancient Greeks did understand what a republic is and it is moderns that don't. It was the Sabines, a Spartan colony, that set up the Roman republic and for SimonP to write what he does and gets away with it is par for the course.

And another thing, I don't appreciate the "cleansing" of the my contributions on Wikipedia. It seems that there is an effort to wipe out my contributions.WHEELER 4 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Called in Some Calvary on DPT[edit]

  • Hi Again! (We have to stop meeting like this, I can hear whispers!) Nahhhhh! Just stumbled acrss a new user User: Neuroscientist and invited him to your DPT Differences party See this link: ClickMe wherein I patched in the differences comparision that I've been bulling my way through today. I did promise to take a look. :) Sorry it's taken a while to mobilize, though I'm probably gonna regret it. Can you refine by line# in ThisDiff where your differences start making a divergence in meaning; and indeed confirm this is the correct diff to view. I will look in the talk too soon, but want a sense of the article and am about to take hardcopies of those and the talk to puruse. So a speedy answer would be helpful.
  • Also, on Talk:Tsushima Islands by divers and mysterious means beyond my understanding, the minor issue of the article name is up for a final vote, which voting includes the proposed compromise (by yourself, IIRC). So take three more minutes to help settle that idiocy once and for all!
FrankB 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC) (The New Sig!)


Nice to meet you. I'm also a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Mathematics. I made you a basic user page. I hope you don't mind; if you do you can always delete it. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Guardian of Light 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)


well, I exported the categories from the article to Category:J. R. R. Tolkien to unclutter the former, so I don't really understand why you reverted me; I don't feel to strongly about it though, so, as you like it. dab () 20:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand. Tolkien was a British Army officer (obviously, not all his life, but who is?). Category:J. R. R. Tolkien is about Tolkien, and thereby about a British Army officer. so how cannot the Tolkien category be a subcategory of the officer category? As it is, too, the Tolkien article appears in the officer category, althogh it is about many things besides Tolkien's activities in the army. dab () 20:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not arguing for inclusion of Tolkien in the category, at all, I also think that it is not very relevant. This is just about linking the article vs. linking the category. We can remove the officer category altogether, but sooner or later somebody is bound to add it again. dab () 20:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
right. I see what you mean. My approach was to consider Valinor as a subset of Tolkien (viz., a part of his mind and/or property), thereby a subset of a particular officer, if you like. But I see your point. Too bad, since my motivation was to declutter the Tolkien article of categories. dab () 21:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page[edit]

Hi. That's an odd preference you have! Nonetheless, I've deleted that page for you. Regards, Stewart Adcock 07:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your message[edit]

(I've just looked at your message again, and realise that I'd completely misread it; I've thus deleted my earlier, slightly testy reply.)

My view on the substance of the debate is that the singular is inaccurate; the islands are referred to in many documents (including Japanese academic documents) in the plural, and as an archipelago. The main island has been divided into two by a channel, and the two parts are often referred to as different islands; also, that main pair is accompanied by many smaller islands. It would seem that Japanese usage in English is prety evenly divided between the use of the singular and plural, while native-English sources prefer the plural. As we're supposed to name according to the most common usage in English, I therefore opt for the plural (though I was happy to vote for the compromise).

(Of course, different languages have different naming conventions, and plural forms are often converted into singular in English (either in the word-form, or simply in the pronouns used. I think that many of the voters for the singular form, the Japanese editors, haven't realised that, and are voring simply in terms of their own usage in Japanese.)

To be honest, although I was turned against the singular form at the beginning by the way that its initial champion behaved, I have no emotional attachment to any of the versions, and though I've given my reasons for thinking that the plural (or the compromise) is more in keeping with Wikipedia naming conventions, I'd not be devastated to see it change to the singular, if that's the genuine consensus view. As it stands, though, I think that we have two main polarised groups (with a few editors in neither): one group wanted the plural, but have accepted the compromise, the other wanted the singular, and refuse to compromise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well, to be honest, I don't think I can improve the article on Feynmann Diagrams much. It contains far too much material that would take too much time for me to fully understand. I'll work on the grammar and probably the wording. DoomBringer 02:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NJ Townships[edit]

Hi, just curious, but could you point to an authoritave source that townships in NJ are in fact incorporated entities? There's no question that they are a type of municipality, but that does not necessary mean the same thing as incorporated. olderwiser 02:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


I'll take a look at democratic peace, but I'm afraid that there's no way of reaching a modus vivendi with this user. Ultramarine knows the Truth and thus finds no counter-evidence worth considering. I'm afraid the only workable strategy will be to revert and start and RfC. 172 | Talk 17:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you be interested in starting one? I don't think that I should do it; although I have been on Wiki for quite some time, I have never had any luck organizing RfCs. It'll be better if someone who has a lot of experience in successfully organizing RfCs gets the work started. 172 | Talk 17:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good thinking. I'll ask her if she's ready to take the lead. If not, I'll do it, but I doubt that I'm the optimal person to carry out such a task.172 | Talk 17:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. BTW, I think that it's possible that Ultramarine is the banned editor User:Libertas. I have asked Radical, who is more familiar with Libertas' editing patterns than I am, if this suspicion is possible to confirm. If it is confirmed that Libertas is indeed Ultramarine, an admin will block him without having to go through arbitration. 172 | Talk 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just did. BTW, could you go ahead and add your sandbox to the RfC as well? 172 | Talk 23:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They look fine to me. Just remember to sign them if you have not already. 172 | Talk 00:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put in my $0.02. Robert A West 18:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Countably many OD reals[edit]

Sure, there's a countable model of ZFC, but that model doesn't know it has only countably many reals (this is called the "Skolem paradox"), so that doesn't settle the question of whether it's consistent with ZFC that there are only countably many OD reals.

The argument I had in mind goes like this: Start with L, in which every real (in fact every set) is OD. Now force to collapse ℵ1 (the forcing conditions are finite partial functions from ℵ1 to ω). Any real that's OD in the extension is OD in the ground model, by homogeneity of the forcing, but in the extension, there are only countably many reals of L, thus only countably many OD reals.

I've noticed that there's a reasonably tolerant attitude around the math project to asserting facts for which you can give simple proofs; nobody calls it "original research" unless you basically make up a whole subject (as with H numbers or Mnenta). Still, I'm concerned that there aren't enough people around capable of checking an argument like the above one, simple as it is, for some silly mistake, so I'm a little reluctant to just stick it in on my own initiative. --Trovatore 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Scholar[edit]

Some things that look promising:

  • In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise
Author: Chan S. 1
Source: The International Studies Review, Volume 41, Number 1, 1997, pp. 59-91(33)
  • Preferences and the Democratic Peace
Author: Erik Gartzke
Source: International Studies Quarterly, Volume 44 Issue 2 Page 191 - June 2000
  • The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory
Author: S Rosato
Source: American Political Science Review, 2003 -

BTW. My first VfD seems to have developed a rapid consensus. I took the time to vote on a few -- one potential keeper, a few "come back when this software/artist is actually notable" and many deletes. I may become a deletionist.Robert A West 18:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A very good proposal, ill keep it in mind!


--Striver 22:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek language[edit]

Sorry, my knowledge of Greek is not enough to contribute to this discussion. What I know of Greek is a few years' secondary school (ancient Greek), and what I've seen and heard on travels through Greece. Markussep 13:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD backlog[edit]

The older entries are there because there is some complication (e.g. history that has to be checked out, to see if we need to archive it) which I (I'm the admin who takes care of RfD) haven't had time to sort out yet. (I used to do the archiving on WP:AN, which took a lot of my time, but I've recently given that up, so I'm trying to get WP:RfD all cleaned up.) If you look at the history, I've been doing a big chunk of the backlog every day recently. If they were simple deletes, they'd be gone now (some are there because they are potentially the source of argument, and I'm waiting to make sure everyone's happy with the solution I've suggested). Noel (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's definitely a problem. I try to be up-front with people when I sign off, though - see, e.g. WP:AN#Someone else needs to take over archiving/maintainence here. No takers, alas! Noel (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IfD you might want to vote on[edit]

I've listed for deletion the unencyclopedic and POV image that Ultramarine keeps trying to add to Criticisms of communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there is no indication on the source website or anywhere else as to where or when the photo was taken. For all we know, it could show the victim of any famine in the 20th century. And you can't even properly see what it is showing. For example, you see a corpse, while I see a crying baby. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Without knowing the details, I suspect that your alternative explanation has a lot going for it. I'm having problems on a set of pop-music articles with editors who need contact with more (and more experienced) editors; I doubt that an RfC would do much good, though. Still, I'd not want to rule out the usefulness of RfCs in all cases. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultramarine again[edit]

Remember that unacceptable POV text that he kept trying to add to Criticisms of communism (the one below the corpse photo)? Well, now he's trying to add the very same text to Vladimir Lenin. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I read the 3RR, repeated instances of triple-reverting, or even double-reverting, and other attempts to game the rule are violations of the rule and can subject the violator to administrative action. Whether this applies in this instance, I do not feel qualified to comment. Robert A West 17:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for advising me about the RfAr. I was only a minor commentator. If the arbitrators want me to review any one of the questioned claims of causation, I will be glad to do so. However, since Ultramarine acknowledges that correlation is not causation, the interpretation of statistics is the sort of thing that should simply be noted in the article. The real issue is a lack of civility and personal attacks, and I trust the arbitrators to be able to read and understand English. Robert McClenon 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message received. So as to not be prejudicial, you both should first file an entry on requests for Mediation. This will start the process, and a mediator will be selected, and if its me, then I will go look it over and offer comment. Sinreg, and welcome to WP -St|eve 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL! Yes of course it counts - sorry I didnt see it. Will look at, comment only briefly today. -St|eve 22:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kewl dude. Don't let your wikistress rise to Lou Ferrigno levels. -St|eve 01:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles of Potential Interest[edit]

Just a place to point you to articles I think you might find interesting, for whatever reason. I'll put more here as I come across them, and other should feel free to add.

South Carolina, State of Treason[edit]

I wonder how long such an article would survive?

I am not sure about the 1950's ... local officials may have suggested war. Of course, that is what we have here. (If such a rebellion caused 1000 casualties, I wonder what Rummel would do with it?) I thought that the Treaty of Paris treated all 13 states as sovereign, and that France recognized them individually. Robert A West 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treaty of Paris, Article I (from Wikisource) "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

I can find no other specific reference in the treaty that makes to SC more sovereign than the others. Robert A West 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that some SC politicians were interviewed on Nightline, and termed this group "too conservative" for SC politics. By their own statements, CE regards Shrub as too liberal.Robert A West 16:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I disagreed with your comments, but I was not frustrated with you personally, since I understood how you made the oversight. Given that the discussion generated on the 3RR page overlooked the talk page, you could not have possibly understood at the time how frustrating Agiantman's behavior was based on what you knew... I was mainly upset with the administrator who blocked me before reviewing the page history and the talk page to find out who was really at fault. At any rate, I appreciated your good faith attempt to report Agiantman. A belated thanks, 172 | Talk 21:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reported his disruption on the incidents page, and they got ignored. Besides, they are indirectly relevant on the 3RR page, since admins should consider the circumstances surrounding the reverts. 172 | Talk 21:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAS and Princeton[edit]

According to Who Got Einstein's Office, the IAS actually was housed at Princeton University (in Fine Hall, Princeton's math building) for 6 years (from the opening in 1933, until Fuld Hall opened in 1939), which was a big part of the reason people often thought it was part of Princeton (and of course, once created, the impression just kept going). See the IAS article, I've made a note of this. Noel (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Well, I'll leave it in your capable hands, then... :-) Noel (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas, I'm not a Sherlock Holmes fan (not that I'm negative about him - I merely mean that I just never got into it), so alas I didn't completely catch the reference, but I think I get the jist of it... :-) Noel (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely you have not forgotten the inscription on the mantlepiece in the old Fine Hall: "Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht." Robert A West 17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kuril Islands dispute[edit]

As the discussion section indicates, I am not just for Northern Territories. My current vote would be:

  • Support Northern Territories
  • Support South Kuril District (was: South Kuril Islands in earlier discussion)
  • Weakly support Merge with Kuril Islands
  • Oppose current title - no change

The discussion has evolved due to new proposals and new information being poured into the discussion. Regarding the existance of a voting section: the merge request began from the very beginning with a partitioning of a voting section and a discussion section, in accordance with the recommended template from WP:RM. The voting section is currently intended as an optional location for making a vote. As the note in the page mentions, the discussion section votes will still be counted and not ignored, so there is no hinderance there. At the very least, by providing a reference of what the current proposed changes are, the intention here is to reduce ambiguously termed votes. I will update the voting section to make clear where people stand.—Tokek 18:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that the voting section has gotten more complex and messy. I am hoping though that after a week, things would get a bit more sorted out. Although the "Northern Territories" option will most likely not survive, removing that option from the voting options could add confusion. Starting over the voting process might seem like I am trying to inappropriately dismiss old votes, so I don't really want to do that either. I am hoping that previous voters will revisit within a week and clarify their position if there was ambiguity. I am planning to wait and see, since voting is supposed to last five days anyway, and extensions is a possibility. —Tokek 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion and Undeletion[edit]

Two comments concerning your image of a group of unthinking deletionists trampling the seed-corn (your words, as nearly as I can remember them).

  1. Try going through three days' worth of VfD to get an idea of the amount of genuine garbage that there is.
  2. Assume 100 deletions per day. There is around one VfU per day. Assume all VfU's are erroneous deletions, that is a wrongful conviction rate of 1%. That is an OOM better than the best criminal justice systems.

Robert A West 10:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what you were getting at when you posted about the move template on my talk page. Again, I apologize if I am being obtuse, but I don't see the context. Robert A West 16:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • OIC. I didn't follow because you answered a question that I never asked, and the answer to which I already knew. Our actual discussion was whether a move to an occupied space could be done *without* resorting to {{move}}, which you proved to me cannot be done. Thank you for correcting the link and thereby removing a forced guess. Robert A West 17:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Unfashiable" Darn! I would like to fashy those pages, but I just can't find a way to do it! Robert A West 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My attempt is at Wikipedia:Deletion reform#Problematic and Abandoned Articles. Also, you may want to comment on my remarks on the nature of verifiability. I am now preparing to be shot. Robert A West 21:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Septemius Severus?[edit]

I checked the article you recommended, and I am not sure what it is you wanted me to see. Sorry if I am being blind. Robert A West 17:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OIC. I hadn't been thinking that specifically. Albus may simply come from Albion with no conscious relation to Claudius Albinus. Promising to divide (whatever) with Dumbledore just doesn't make that much sense. I find Sirius self-explanatory with no need to go that far -- although Rowling may have arrived at Sirius Black via punning. I wouldn't derive too much from this, as meta-reasoning of this sort if often misleading. I (of all people) should not need to remind you (of all people) of famous instances of this.  ;-) Robert A West 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thorn in my side[edit]

I am trying to find a word other than "Vandalism" to describe the move we are trying to undo, but I am failing. This seems to have been done by some Icelander who evidently doesn't understand that Middle- and Old-English are languages distinct from English. At base, the inability to agree on even such simple constructs as "Articles in the X-language Wikipedia should be titled in language X" is one of the fundamental flaws in the concept of Wikipedia. Robert A West 02:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we seem to have a comfortable majority, so the thorn should be pulled before long. Septentrionalis 20:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at Wynn. The nordic nationalists seem to have renamed an article in a character set that does not appear in my browser. Article names should be displayable. Argh! Robert A West 18:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortunately, the move back had not been rendered impossible. Robert A West 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also moved Ezh for the same reason. I have added notes to please not move back in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) without discussion on WP:RM. Robert A West 19:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My vein of nationalism has finally been touched. An out of state botanist has moved the prefectly good Pine Barrens article to New Jersey Pine Barrens and is proposing to move it on to New Jersey pine barrens although Pine Barrens is a proper name, and the primary use of that name. I am restraining myself from reverting point-blank; but since the &$&*^&$ has meddled with the redirects, I'll have to go to WP:RM anyway. Septentrionalis 20:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me? I have no problem at all with leaving New Jersey Pine Barrens exactly as it is. Have you looked at the Pine Barrens article? There are lots of pine barrens around besides the one in NJ. And I made sure to make the NJPB the first one on the list. And I didn't "meddle with" the redirects, I put in the redirects that appeared necessary. Mwanner 12:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
What I really don't understand is what you meant by your original comment on this whole issue: Given Wikipedia naming conventions, New Jersey Pine Barrens with four caps implies that NJPB is a proper name, which I do not believe. From that, I thought that your primary issue was with the cap P and B.
As for having Pine Barrens as the title for the NJ article and Pine barrens for the general article, it just seems odd to me. Yes, the NJ barrens are the most frequently sited. But a google search for "pine barrens" brings up the barrens on Long Island in positions 5 and 7.

Really, though, it's not that big a deal to me. I have no chauvinism invested, just what to me seems like common sense. Full disclosure-- I live in New York, but I'm about equidistant from both the NY and NJ barrens. Anyway, do what you like. -- Mwanner 15:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess common sense is in the eye of the beholder. The article on the Grand Canyon is not called Arizona Grand Canyon or Grand Canyon of the Colorado, even though there are other canyons that are grand, notably Grand canyon of the yellowstone and Grand canyon of Pennsylvania. My common sense says that where a place has a proper noun that is widely used, we should use that proper noun as the title. Nor should we pretend that the proper noun is a common one. The Pine Barrens are known nationally by that name and that name (or Pinelands) is used without qualification in federal legislation. What more do we need? Robert A West 18:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it started small and built up. At the beginning, I checked each of Germen's additions as he made them (the ones I didn't know already), and found each one not to fit the "supremacist" label. He began adding more and more, though, as he tried to get his PoV into the article hidden in a barrage of new links, and I didn't thoroughly check the last couple of tranches I'm afraid. If some of them are genuinely supremacist groups, then fine (though I'm still concerned that the article not become dominated by a list of links). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate to have to tell you this, but the hard work you put into many recent additions to Baseball slang was misdirected. Those items belong instead in Baseball jargon. Don't blame me, I didn't set those pages up. :\ Wahkeenah 21:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are usung "Baseball slang" to mean general-usage expressions that derived from baseball jargon: step up to the plate, cover all the bases, etc. Wahkeenah 21:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I'm reverting your changes to baseball slang. Baseball slang, according to the article, are words which have passed into everyday usage from baseball. The additions you made would seem to fit more into baseball jargon.

Thanks for understanding. —Sean κ. + 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I'm reverting your changes to baseball slang. Baseball slang, according to the article, are words which have passed into everyday usage from baseball. The additions you made would seem to fit more into baseball jargon.

Thanks for understanding. —Sean κ. + 02:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You conclude a little too fast: I plan neither to try to defend Aeschines' account of Socrates (which, in any case, is far to fragmentary) nor to tell the world about Stone's views. How did you draw this conclusion from what I said? If you are interested, my favoured account of Socrates non-major sources would be Charles Kahn's. For what I actually do plan to do, which I am sure you will have no objection to, see the Socrates discussion page. I am genuinely grateful for you feedback.

I realise the importance of the primary sources and have read them - please, again, do not draw conclusions so fast. --Dast 17:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woody Allen, in the movie Love and Death:

  • A. All men are mortal.
  • B. Socrates is a man.
  • C. All men are Socrates.

Wahkeenah 18:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Democratic Ideals Is there a reason for making external links to WP articles?[edit]

That was done because the elements being referenced do not have direct tags that can be linked, and re-writing the text to force a convenient wiki link was an unnecessary hampering of the text. Here's the sentence in question:

  • Nations which have seen themselves as more Democratic have, in the view of some paradoxically, been willing to export their system to other states or nations by force, beginning, most famously, with Athens[2], but also including America at the end of the 19th century [3] and France[4] during the first decade after the French Revolution.

Notice that if we just wikilink, it makes the link misleading, like so:

See what I mean? None of the wikilinks point to what their name seems to indicate they're talking about. The "Athens" link doesn't point to Athens, it points to Peloponnesian war. And fixing this just warps the language to create a neater hyperlink - hyperlinks should make the article easier to understand, not force the writers to write so as to pop up the correct "buzzword." So, it was neater to place it as a link beside the text that you could click on for more information, as it made the text flow better. =) Xaa 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I'm sure you may be sincere in believing that Melchizedek is a hoax as a micronation.

Actually in a way you are correct, because Melchizedek never claimed to be a micrnation. Instead it has consistently claimed to be an ecclesiastical sovereignty for which it has received dejure recognition from at least one UN member state.

It has also gained a false and misleading reputation as fake country, but because it never claimed to be a country, it also doesn't deserve that label.

In fact it appers to me to be unique, somewhere between the SMOM and the Vatican with many other attributes.

Because it doesn't enjoy the same reputation or complicated long history as those more august sovereignties, that doesn't mean that it is not sincere in its claims.

The past 15 years of Melchizedek's history reveals consistency and growth in line with its original and current claims.

That is why I believe it is crazy to link it to hoaxes.

Charles Dickens[edit]

Further to your comment on the Ellen Terry talk page, I thought you might like to know Charles Dickens was involved with Ellen Turnan, not Ellen Terry.


Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles on royal and papal articles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal styles of
Pmanderson/Archive 1
Papal styles of
Pope Paul VI
Monarchical styles of
Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary
Styles of
James V of Scotland
Presidential styles of
Pmanderson/Archive 1
File:Ie pres.png
Styles of
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall


I guess your edit summary about not biting the newbies was meant to suggest that advanced math should not be presented early on in a math article. But the WP:bite policy is not about presenting difficult math in articles, it's about people who are new to editing here, and not yelling at them for doing things wrong. Do it doesn't really apply to your edit. -Lethe | Talk 21:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I did some extensive copyediting here. After all, an amicus need not present a brief, which point was noted only at the end. Robert A West 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there any reason not to create a redirect from fin-de-siècle to fin de siècle? Robert A West 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I wouldn't put in the Ottomans at this point -- the WWI section is long enough for the general reader as it is. Robert A West 20:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Now that I read it in context, I change my opinion. Robert A West 20:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I suppose it cannot be presumed that Ultramarine has actually read this passage, however." And in what type of saucer would you like your milk served? Robert A West 18:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that if an RfC exists, the subject has a responsibility to read it. He certainly responded often enough. BTW, don't forget that gaming the 3RR is forbidden. Repeatedly doing three reverts per day, except in response to obvious vandalism, or doing a fourth revert just outside the window, is grounds for action, especially if it becomes habitual. Robert A West 18:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted Criticisms of Communism to your last version, preserving the twoversions status quo.Robert A West 19:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it will probably come up again, how does one fix a 2V tag after editing the B version then reverting to the A version? Robert A West 21:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, I used Kate's tool: I have only 237 mainspace edits. I was surprised, until I realized that a lot of my edits have gone under my IP from work. The tool doesn't seem to work for IP addresses. Robert A West 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe a consensus exists on CoC to eliminate the 2V tag. I have proposed a poll to establish this -- UM claims this is a policy violation for reasons that utterly escape me. You may wish to vote. Robert A West 21:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that you merely said, "Politer than others," and not "has never given offense." Hmmm.... In any case, I am not sure how this works. Am I party #2 or part of party 1? Robert A West 23:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the 2V tag on CoC. Ultramarine has reverted twice, and I have reverted twice. I will check if he has violated 3RR yet today. In any case, you may want to watch this, as he has now threatened to ask for page protection. I can't see anyone protecting the 1-editor version against the 3-editor version. Robert A West 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultramarine has outdone himself on the talk page. [5] Cite a source, other than the source you are citing for the contents of the source you are citing. How like the Tortoise! Robert A West 22:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be interested in the changes I made to Democratic Peace Theory and the comments I made in its talk page Robdurbar 11:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest , all my enthusiasm for the page has been driven out. I'm away this weekend anyway and face a couple of weeks without internet connection towards the end of September; after this, I might feel more willing to return to the page! Good luck with your work on it Robdurbar 08:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy redirects[edit]

Please take a look at my comments at Wikipedia talk:Deletion reform/Proposals/Speedy redirect DES (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had an edit conflict just now, after I had done a vetting of all edits since 16 July. Please check that it's currently to your satisfaction, for you've made a number of very sensible edits there over the past weeks. My note is at the Talk page. If I'm mistaken in any aspect of my assertions, it would be good for all to correct me. --Wetman 23:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noted that you deleted my addendum, that Ultramarine's incivil remark included a demand to cite a source for my decision to cite five, rather than eight, sources in the text. I grant you that it was also my opinion that the formulation of counter-criticisms to "Bloc Peace Theory" that he advocated was Original Research by Ultramarine and logically flawed, but a demand that I cite a source for a claim of OR is absurd as well.

Robert A West 15:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I inserted more detail on the Criticisms of Communism issue. Robert A West 15:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultramarine, not you, notified me that I am a party to the RfAr. I am not sure I follow. I note that one arbitrator is concerned that it will devolve into a content dispute. We need to make clear that we are not looking for content arbitration. Robert A West 23:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your message[edit]

Sorry to hear it; one of my bugbears (Mr Tan (talk · contribs) has come back as at least one, possibly two users (PM Poon (talk · contribs) and ETTan (talk · contribs)). Meanwhile, although a couple of the editors with whom I was in conflict over the pop-music articles have come round, and we've achieved a reasonable editing relationship, one's just as bad, and another couple have popped up, one of them an admin...

There are times when I wish that i could just beaver away in some little corner of Wikipedia, never coming into contact with anyone, producing and polishing my articles on subjects in which no-one else has the slightest interest... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you may have accidently placed your vote under the wrong heading. You moight want to check on that. Thanks.--Pharos 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I'm just letting you know I'm going to revert your edit to Jacques Barzun for now. I'm almost positive (given the White House's comments here) that Barzun was alive in 2003. If he is, in fact, deceased it would be a tremendous loss, but I'm almost positive he didn't pass away in 2001, at least. If you have a source, please put it on his article's talk page? Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV up for deletion?[edit]

There is a comment to that effect on CoC. Any idea of what gives?

Oh, and I agree that it is silly that twenty articles about NJ/Pine Barrens now point to a dab page, while one (and only one) article really is intended to point to the dab page. Sigh! Robert A West 01:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I?[edit]

Am I? I simply added in the word to match its usage in other papal articles. I agree it is clumsy. Perhaps the second pope should be replaced by Supreme Pontiff or something. I think it is rather better to use a monarch's title alongside regnal name at the start. Leo XII on its own looks rather . . . um . . . naked. Pope Leo XII makes more sense.

I'm happy though with how the boxes are working. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been asked to investigate whether the ongoing dispute over the Criticisms of communism article is mediatable. From looking at the history and the talk page, it seems that there are two divergent versions of the article that differ in a significant number of ways. It would be in Wikipedia's interest to coalesce these versions into a single version. I would like to arrange a discussion amongst the editors in question with the goal of reaching a single, mutually acceptable article so we can end this dispute. Please get back to me over your willingness to mediate this issue. The four editors I've identified as party to this dispute are Ultramarine, Septentrionalis, Mihnea Tudoreanu and Robert A West; this message is being sent to all four of you. If any of you are willing to allow one of the others to act as representative (thereby reducing the number of parties to the mediation), or knows of someone else who should be included, please let me know. I am willing to act as mediator; if anybody is unwilling for me to serve in that capacity, I will instead help you to find another mutually acceptable mediator. Mediation is, of course, a voluntary process, and you are not required to participate in mediation. The page is currently protected, however; a successful mediation of this dispute will speed the process of getting the page unprotected, so I strongly recommend that mediation be pursued.

Regards, Kelly Martin 17:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I note that Agiantman has shown up. I was wondering when he would. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman as well. Robert A West 23:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Morris, The Wood Beyond the World[edit]

I've replied on my own page. In short: I didn't set the date 1892, it was already there when I first edited the page. So if you have a better source feel free to correct it. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since you use a sig that appears totally disconnected with your user name, I was wondering if you might be inclined to avail yourself of the new Wikipedia:Changing username available in version 1.5. Dragons flight 00:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thai MoS[edit]

See again Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Cast votes. There will apparently never be identical first names as those of Thai royals, in any other country. 10:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pine Barrens redux[edit]

I moved the dab page to List of pine barrens. I think that is a better title. I left Pine Barrens as a redirect to the list. Robert A West 07:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was interested in your vote; do you have any sources for modern uses (rather than references to) "unalienable? All the U.S. sources at which I looked used "inalienable", often explicitly glossing "unalienable" in quotations. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, so the latest references are well over a century old. Would you be prepared to change your vote? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbtitration Committee[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is bogged down with many case right now. We're trying to come up with strategies for working our way through them. I wish I could tell you more, but that's all I have. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Price Gouging[edit]

I have now been twice (once by RJII and once by Anon) accused of deleting arguments in favor of Price gouging, yet I am at a loss to see what argument I am supposed to have deleted. I did rephrase to what I believe is more accurate and a stronger argument: Libertarian economists reject the term itself, and generally enclose it in scare quotes.

On the other hand, I could have overlooked something. Could you double-check and see if I did delete an actual argument? Otherwise I have to conclude that the complaints are content-free. Thanks. Robert A West 22:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OIC. I read more carefuly and realize that I am being berated for deleting arguments by people on both sides of the aisle. I congratulate myself. Robert A West 22:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congress of the United States[edit]

I am surprised that neither of you checked the article on Marbury v. Madison and its references. finis for this issue, I believe. Robert A West 23:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning of vandalism[edit]

This message is regarding the page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arrigo 06:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Septentrionalis, please don't worry too much, I put some work in: User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption --Francis Schonken 12:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I know we are sometimes at odds what regards the path to follow for the Names & Titles guideline, but that doesn't worry me. If you have reasonable arguments, I want to be able to listen to them, not hampered by disruption of the serene climate needed for such discussions. So, yes, my present actions might seemingly postpone the "serene climate" for a little while, but the reality is that if not all parties involved in the discussion agree on serenity, there's only disruption and no real talk. So, sorry for the embarrasment that flew your way, while I feel a bit responsible for it. I'm not asking for support, I just want to say sorry, and that you needn't worry, nor need to get involved in this. Whatever way the dispute between me and Arrigo turns (him getting blocked, or coming to his senses about what is disruptive and what is not), it won't take too long before we're back on a serene discussion w.r.t. the guideline. --Francis Schonken 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to come to the talk page and discuss the name of this. I'm not neccessarily objecting to your renaming, although I'm not sure it it the best. But it might have been better had you discussed it first - it will have created a screed of double-redirects for fixing. So let's agree on a name, before we go futher. As I say, your name may be the right one, but we should discuss it. --Doc (?) 13:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pine Barrens[edit]

I have reverted your change at Pine Barrens. What we all agreed to was: "to have this page at Pine Barrens (New Jersey) and the dab at Pine Barrens". Please keep the faith, and I'll do likewise. TIA, -- Mwanner 18:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

    • Look. On August 7, on Talk:Pine Barrens (New Jersey), you proposed "to have this page at Pine Barrens (New Jersey) and the dab at Pine Barrens".
    • On August 10, after way too much discussion, I accepted your proposal-- it wasn't my favorite solution, nor yours, but that's the nature of compromise.
    • On August 27, User:Robert A West moved the dab to List of pine barrens. I didn't object at that time, because Pine Barrens redirected to the list, fair enough.
For you to now change the redirect to Pine Barrens (New Jersey) is bad faith-- it tears up the hard-fought-for agreement. It's simply not right. -- Mwanner 19:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that having "the dab at Pine Barrens" was your proposal. -- Mwanner 23:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And I'm sorry that I didn't notice sooner that your previous msg essentially announced your intension not to revert. Peace. Mwanner 23:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

South Jersey[edit]

Different matter entirely-- I just noticed an edit to the South Jersey article, where the following assertions appear: "All of New Jersey's counties and towns now run one into the next. Some consider the entire state urban." Now, I'm not an expert on New Jersey, but I know that, even leaving out the Pinelands (just to use a neutral term;-) the state is anything but an urban wasteland. Perhaps you'd like to take a look? -- Mwanner 00:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


How many "l"s does Philip/Phillip take? I'm not sure what you meant at Talk:Philip III, Duke of Burgundy --Francis Schonken 10:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK for you to change your last edit of that page to
  1. Oppose Philip the Good and Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy are both much clearer identification to most readers:
    * "Which one was Philip III, again?"
    * "Philip the Good."
    * "oh, thanks." or even "Ah, right."
    Septentrionalis 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? ...the present version breaks up the lay-out and the numbering. --Francis Schonken 14:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tx! even like your layout better. --Francis Schonken 15:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Paine[edit]

I'm trying to assume that you overlooked the entire preceding conversation. The dubious tag is there because the Legacy section implies that Paine inspired Washington when in fact Paine hated him. The link ( only proves this point. Do not remove the tag without correcting the facts. freestylefrappe 22:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent edits. freestylefrappe 22:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


You made an edit on July 22 to the pi page that I am very interested in. You appear to be talking about the history of the approximation with respect to Plato and Karl Popper. Did I read that wrong? Where can I learn more about this? You can see from this discussion that many editors felt the approximation was irrelevant and should not be included in the article. Any info you have would be appreciated. -Armaced 23:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

searching around, I found this article - Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! -Armaced 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]