| Revision as of 12:51, 2 July 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,578 edits →Latin phrases: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:53, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 48) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| *] *] | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 125K | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |counter = 48 | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |archive = User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == Drawshield File:Blazon of Champion de Crespigny baronets, of Champion Lodge (1805).svg == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi | |||
| Just to confirm, are you aware of the ] made by ], and the ] for a temporary injunction made by ]? ]<sup>(])</sup> 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for uploading File:Blazon of Champion de Crespigny baronets, of Champion Lodge (1805).svg | |||
| :Sadly I'm offline at present - this is from CB1. ] 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ooh - found any good books? ]<sup>(])</sup> 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As you will have realised the 2nd and third quarters (2nd and 3rd azure three bars argent)look distorted. | |||
| :Have you seen my place ...? All the books are good. But NTL is back on now. ] 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A workaround on Drawshield that produces a better looking result is 2nd and 3rd barry of 7 azure and argent | |||
| == Enid Blyton == | |||
| You can see the result at https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Champion_de_Crespigny-17 | |||
| Hi. You appear to be the main contributor, so I thought I'd tell you directly, I plan on merging all the "List of Enid Blyton books" pages into a single (or 2) articles. Mostly to make it easier to browse, but partly to make it easier to watchlist/protect-from-vandalism. If you have any objections, please let me know at ]. Thanks :) --] 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I wish the lions in the 1st and 4th quarters were not distorted but ... | |||
| :Er, why? It isn't easy to scroll a page with a huge number of titles. It isn't easier to maintain, either. ] 10:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regards | |||
| ::Oh, I didn't really think you'd object! | |||
| ] <sup>]</sup> 04:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe it's easier to scroll down a semi-long page, than it is to constantly scroll to the bottom and click a link to go to the next year's list. It also makes it easier to "Search within page" from a webbrowser. | |||
| ::For reference, I'll point you towards examples such as ], ], and ], and everything else in ]; separate bibliography pages are also being discussed at ] currently. Lastly, it's the only way it could ever potentially become a Featured List (]). | |||
| ::Make sense? I'll make an example page, without redirecting the originals, and you can see what I mean. Thanks :) --] 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Example page at ]. See for alternate styling (all years as subheaders). This is all 28 (!) articles merged into one. The other benefit, is if the info were tabulated, the columns could be ] to group by year/title/series/illustrator. | |||
| :::] should probably get merged to there and/or ] too, as it appears to be redundant duplication. | |||
| :::All sound good? :) --] 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Matilda}} Thanks for getting in touch about this image from 2021. I have uploaded a new version at ]. | |||
| :Actually, I compiled the Chesterton list (and the Belloc). At around 150 titles they are manageable. Blyton has more titles by a factor of around four; and is constantly being reprinted, so that a more complete bibliography would be huge. ] 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There are various improvements that can now be made, as Drawshield develops. On the 2nd and 3rd quarters, the blazon is definitely azure three bars argent, for Vierville de Vierville. Using barrulets doesn't look good, so there is a limit to what I can do there. | |||
| :The old image is now marked "superseded" on Commons. I am gradually providing replacements for Drawshield images such as this one. ] (]) 05:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks - my father has managed to adjust the lions (I htink using Microsoft Paint) so an improved version at Wikitree:https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Champion_de_Crespigny-17-1 | |||
| ::Drawshield is great but there can be limitations | |||
| ::Regards | |||
| ::] <sup>]</sup> 05:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. There are people here who produce better shields with software, but I have covered a lot of ground with Drawshield. ] (]) 06:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == CorruptionOfEconomics == | |||
| :So the page you have made is 40K, with minimal publication information about most titles. Also you are wrong to say it is in any sense complete. ] 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you so much, Charles, for creating the article page. | |||
| ::The lack of publication info to be merged isn't my fault! I've removed the word "complete", and noted that it is incomplete and unreferenced (as are all the source pages...). | |||
| ::The ] guideline points out that the 32k limit "apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages". Having it all on one page also helps readers realize the extent of Blyton's work. See also ]. | |||
| ::(I'm guessing you're not a ], but, if I may quote that page briefly: "''Mergists believe that while much information may warrant inclusion somewhere, very little of it probably warrants its own article.''") | |||
| ::If you still object, I guess my next step would be to add merge tags to all 28 stub/sub-articles, and start a full discussion at either ] or ]. Suggestions welcome. Thanks again. --] 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you are interested as a "lead author" there is a compiled version of the text here https://globalartscollective.org/corruption-of-economics.htm#top, or I cand lend you a copy of the second edition, 2022, from Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd. | |||
| Well, you seem to be enough of a mergist not to expect any objections to a merge, and then to go ahead, dismissing such objections retrospectively. This is not exactly how business is usually transacted here. I'm not in the slightest interested in whether or not people ''realize the extent of Blyton's work''. I created the articles because Blyton is incredibly popular (outside the USA), and it is good for the site to have articles about the lady's works. (I'm not a fan.) An article on what Blyton published in a given year 1940 to 1960 ''is'' warranted. ] 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :PS. I just seen the latest version. You '''are''' obviously interested... | |||
| :Please try to assume good faith. I was being overtly polite by even asking you in the first place, after asking at ] days ago, instead of being bold and just merging. | |||
| ] (]) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't understand what your assertion of 'lack of interest' in the readers being able to glean additional information, is meant to imply. You seem to be antagonistic towards my merging your (28 seperate stub) articles, but I don't understand why, so I keep pointing out potential benefits and trying to answer your objections, which is an attempt to reach consensus, which '''''is''''' "''how business is usually transacted here''". Now, do you have an actual reason for believing Enid Blyton requires '''twenty eight''' list articles for her bibliography, or did you just get out bed on the wrong side this morning? --] 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will be able to get a library copy of the book. ] (]) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 12#Pregnant man}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Seasons Greetings!== | |||
| So, you finally asked why ''I'' saw fit to split up the bibliography, which is what I was waiting for. I was not questioning your good faith, rather your style in assuming you had all the answers. As is commonly said, Blyton wrote over 600 titles. Therefore a single article is not the answer. I have just been consulting ''Children's Fiction 1900-1950'' by John and Jonathan Cooper. The Blyton titles from the 1940s alone take up five closely-printed pages in two columns in that. | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#00A86B; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">]]{{-}} | |||
| You are wrong about the etiquette, by the way. If you propose to merge a page, you should put a notice on that page, not somewhere else. 'Days ago' hardly covers it. I happen to have been involuntarily offline; but where's the big rush? ] 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{white|{{big|'''''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] 08:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)'''''}}}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| :Instead of being oblique, and "waiting for" me to come up with the right phrasing, why didn't you just answer my original request for objection/comment in the spirit it was intended? And, more to the point, why have you ''still'' not explained a rationale for requiring ''28 separate stub articles''? | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| :The first 2 pages in that series ({{tl|Blyton bibliography}}) already span multiple years, and 1934 includes more books than 1941, yet doesn't require its own page? You haven't suggested the obvious compromise of making just 2 lists, e.g. 1922-1952 and 1953-1975. As far as I can tell, 28 stubs is pointless article-count inflation, and they are never going to grow as individual articles beyond where they are now. | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}} | |||
| :Barbara Cartland wrote 657 books, which are all listed happily on one page. The only lists split into more than one in ], are those concerning novels vs. short stories (for J. R. R. Tolkien, P. G. Wodehouse, and Isaac Asimov). Your stance seems to implicitly suggest that all those bibliographies in the category ought to be split into multiple stubs too? The recently Featured lists, ] and ], are just as long page-wise. | |||
| Best wishes for the season, and beyond! --] (]) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't understand why you're being so unhelpful. If you just have a personal dislike for long pages, I'm sorry, but that's not a valid objection to a merge. | |||
| :My intent in asking at ] was to actually get some feedback, as I'd guessed that very few people watchlist the 28 separate articles, plus the merge tag that's already there has been undiscussed since it was in mid-April. As we seem to be having communication problems (something about the style/voice of my writing irks you? I try to be as concise as possible, but I have no control over the intonation that readers ascribe to the words...), I will do the full official process, and add merge tags to all the articles. There is no rush, I'm just trying to improve/fix things as I find them. --] 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just watched the ] 2 days ago, having read the ] a few years ago. I wish we were getting along better, that I might ask you irrelevant but socially-gluing questions (how was he at go?), or for any Erdős anecdotes. C'est la vie. --] 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''28 separate stub articles''? You don't actually know the definition of stub then. It is not defined by length; it is defined by being essentially incomplete with respect to the topic. There is the old saying: Misplaced Pages is not paper. The number of articles on an area is not really the issue. I spent time today fleshing out the page for 1949. With the external links, around two dozen, it comes to a healthy page (for which stub would be a gross misdescription). Scaling up, there would be a Blyton bibliography page with some hundreds of inline links. You don't actually know that these pages aren't going to grow, either. I have started to put in something about the reprint information, but not yet the publishers. One of the external links is a page that claims to be a fairly complete list (lying, of course); it's a big, unwieldy page with not much more than titles, and I think we can do much better. Another major site does it year-by-year. I still prefer my original idea on this. | |||
| I'm quite happy to talk about Erdős as go player. He was around 2 ''kyu'', and had probably played quite a bit. He didn't understand about shape or high strategy, but was reasonably sharp. ] 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Seeking Admin. Oversight == | |||
| I have recently come under rather harsh scrutiny by one of the Misplaced Pages administrators, ] for what he calls uncivil behavior and making comments towards users. There is already a dialogue on his talk page that references this: | |||
| ===Interactions on your talk page=== | |||
| (Copied and pasted from ]) | |||
| Please refrain from attacking other users as you did . Editing Misplaced Pages can be frustrating, but it's important to keep a cool head. Labelling other editors trolls is counterproductive, and behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. There's no need to get bent out of shape so quickly; if something seems unfair or improper to you, take the time to find out the other person's reasoning. They might know something you don't. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So let me get this straight, it's okay for other users to attack me on their "talk history page" but it's not okay for them to do the same , I '''strongly encourage''' you to look into problems before you start making accusations or threats. Furthermore, the user ] demonstrated to me ] therefore I did accuse him of being a troll, I also highly encourage you to look at the discussion that was on my talk page and the bavhior he displayed on his. I have also observed that you have demonstrated to exercise your blocking power as an administrator quite frequently, sometimes without any warnings. Please collect all your G-2 before making such accusations in the future. -] 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Flying off the handle for no reason. I didn't make any threats; I gave you a warning. Behavior like that ''can'' get you blocked if it keeps up. See your little "sometimes without warnings" comment? Well, that was your warning. | |||
| :::I actually exercise my "blocking power" quite ''less frequently'' than most. People often get pissed at me for not blocking the editors they want me to, and I spend most of my time working on ], not ]. I just wanted to encourage you to try harder when interacting with others. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===interactions on your talk page, part 2=== | |||
| is exactly the sort of thing I warned you about. First of all, he's absolutely right - you're not allowed to change other people's comments in discussions for any reason. Secondly, if you don't like what someone writes on your talk page, you can remove their comments without calling them "absurd" and "asinine". Now, you can overreact to what I'm saying here and call it a threat (which will get you nowhere) or you can take it for what it's worth: one last friendly warning before things start to get unpleasant. I could leave you some stupid <nowiki>{{npa3}}</nowiki> template warning instead, but I prefer to talk things out like human beings whenever possible. You seem to have the potential to be a good editor, but I will not sit by and let you abuse others while I wait for that good editor to evolve. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::For your information, it is not uncivil to say that the words "absurd" and "asinine", on the contrary they are very civil and I would imagine that '''most''' would find it okay to say these words describing someones actions. 1.) I did not make any personal attacks, I was descring the nature of the behavior. 2.) I find it rather civil considering the other options that I have at my disposal. 3.) I particullarly find your "observations" of my rather scrutinizingly rediculous and your manner in which you "talk" to me is by nature '''very cantankerous'''. If anything, I would contest that as an administrator, you are abusing the right for me to edit things on my own talk page without some Misplaced Pages administrator discussing the '''do's''' and '''don'ts''' on what I say on my edit line is crossing the line. -] 06:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Furthermore, it is clear that you have not looked into the comments made by ] from observing his comments which me hade on his talk page in reference to me. This can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:RJHall&action=history]. This proves that you as an administrator are harrassing me and looking for a conflict. If you think you are unbias and dealing fair treatment on Misplaced Pages, then you are terribly mistaken. -] 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would ask as a member of the Arbitration community, you please review this matter with your peers and please come to a speedy resolution. Thank you. -] 06:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Civility is not negotiable. You may delete comments of others on your own User talk page, but nowhere else. Anything more? ] 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Copyright violation in ]== | |||
| {{User:Android_Mouse_Bot_2/intro|François-Etienne Caulet}} is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.<br>{{User:Android_Mouse_Bot_2/end|François-Etienne Caulet}} --] 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == move request == | |||
| Hi Charles, I have been working on expanding the article ], but wanted to move it to ], since the Bruhat-Tits building is only a special case. However, as that page was a redirect, I wasn't able to accomplish the move, even after removing the link. Can you, please, help? I think that the comments subpage for rating project has to be moved manually as well. If possible, please, do not create a redirect at Bruhat-Tits building, as we may to post a more specialized article there eventually, or at least a stub temporarily. Thank you, ] 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. There is no choice about the redirect, but you can edit it without problems. ] 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|],}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: <br><center>'''I know "Franz Kafka" but I never heard of a "Franz Wedekind", see ]'''</center><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <code><nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki></code> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. '''This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --] 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notability of ]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|],}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please ]. <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <code><nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki></code> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. '''This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --] 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|],}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: <br><center>'''Housekeeping - cleanup per ]'''</center><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <code><nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki></code> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. '''This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --] 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Marco Mortara == | |||
| Sorry for that, its just i was going through the New pages category, and thought it must have been some new user :) Its just that the source you have mentioned is having some trouble with its server, and maybe you could fix the external link ] 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC) My apologies for the CSD, and i forgot to sign in :) ]] 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Transnistria ArbCom case == | |||
| Charles Matthews, you have voted in the proposed decision page both versions of remedies, like voting both topical ban version and general ban version. Please clarify which one is the first choice and which is second. Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that's a 'whatever'. I'll come back to it if it matters. ] 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Math articles == | |||
| I have begun going through your math contributions and tagging some for merging or deletion. No hard feelings, but several of the ones I've looked at are either completely contained in other pages or would do better to be such. ] 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have looked at several of these, and you were wrong in every case. In particular the speedy deletion tag on ] is not at all justified. There is huge scope for expansion at ]. ] 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I came here by accident and noticed this. The few suggestions I have seen for mergers or deletions are mostly ill-conceived in my view, and I have commented as appropriate on the given pages. ] 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I've noticed 7 arbiters voted for ] and ] banning on the grounding: | |||
| ''"As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned"''<small>(from the project or from making any contributions related to Transnistria.)</small> | |||
| I don't think being a ''single-purpose account'' is wrong. If so, it means a variety of edits is required just to be in the project; and I think this opposes to the ''anyone can edit'' concept. | |||
| Regarding ''edit-warring'', I think Mauco provoked them, either directly, or by his unfair edits, and I will add here only some of the examples in which I was involved: | |||
| # my first edit on this subject was reverted by Mauco under the edit summary: | |||
| #Mauco removed the disputes-templates I've added under the edit summary: | |||
| #] ''and'' ] made changes depsite the oposal of the majority and asked us consensus before reverting them | |||
| #"they" also reverted the edits they said they agree with, to force us introduce them ''gradually''. | |||
| I think it is relevat here to say Mauco refused mediation | |||
| I wonder would Misplaced Pages have ever solved ''Mauco problem'' if MariusM and EvilAlex had been afraid to get involved in disputes?<small> (] on Pernambuco and Mauco in November 2006, but it was rejected. The first step in unmasking Mauco was made in a war-edit, in which "Pernambuco" used ] to revert MariusM.)</small> | |||
| ] 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As it says at ], a single-purpose account is not necessarily bad. It depends on the user behaviour. ] 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand being a single-purpose account is not bad on its own, but, if you are involved in a dispute, it is an aggravating circumstance. I just feel accusing somebody of being a single-purpose account is like accusing of having an extremely narrow area of interest.] 08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that is where the problem lies. Editors should be here as encyclopedists, implying a broad view. We don't like 'obsessive editing', we don't like specialists ''if they have a one-sided POV'', we don't like other signs indicating 'conflict of interest' in the broad sense (caring more about getting publicity for certain views than about the overall mission to be an informative reference site). The ArbCom uses these concepts to get a clearer formulation of editor behaviour. Anyone can become involved in edit wars; but those coming here and warring from a narrow base of edits are at risk in Arbitration of being found not to care too much about 99.99% of the site. ] 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, but, on this criterion, an editor who has suffered from certain authorities abuses, or who has seen suffering from abuses, or a human rights activist, or, whatever motivations he might have, if he wants to clean articles of propaganda for abusive authorities, than he is still a ''single purpose account'', and could even be considered a ''one sided POV''.<br>Second, not editing other articles doesn't mean not caring about them; I hope one can't be accused of not caring about any of the volunteer projects he didn't take part in.<br>Many editors do not want to get involved in disputes which tend to use much of their time, but, if no editor had gotten involved in the dispute with Mauco, Mauco would have never been caught, and we would still have a highly POV article, kept so by a now proven bad faith editor.] 09:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The point of Arbitration is to take everything into account. Detailed explanations are given; that is because the community wishes to understand the reasoning. There are many principles used in Arbitration, and those are not always stated. One very obvious one, for those with experience of Misplaced Pages, is that the bad behaviour of other editors is not to be used as a reason to behave badly. The AC looks most closely at editor behaviour. Often people misjudge what it is they should do, in order to keep articles neutral. The only correct way is a very steady, reasonable, long term approach based on full discussion of the material, using reliable sources. ] 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is the main argument for banning MariusM and EvilAlex the creation of the page Heaven of Transnistria and image ? If no, please tell me examples of his bad behaviour.] 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Spanish rabbi== | |||
| Hi isn't the wording "is interesting intrinsically" POV? for the encyclopedia. LOL you have appear to have an incredible knowledge of rabbis!!! ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe - reword if you like. I have no knowledge of rabbis as such: Google is my friend in this matter. ] 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That Jewish encyclopedia looks good - its a shame it currently doesn't seem to be operating. The site on my computer came up as a dead link. Again keep up the good work on the medieval Jewish articles. Regards ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I get the Google cached versions; presumably they'll fix the server some time. The JE is good in the sense of coherence; it seems that it was written by a smaller group of scholars than the 1911 EB or the CE. I'm just fitting some of it together via wikilinks. The only skill is finding the name variants. ] 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Good. I just started the article ] -there are so many missing encyclopedia articles!!! I started articles such as ], ], ] and ] not long ago - these are major articles that were missing I was amazed they didn't exist!!!! I am currently trying to create a wildlife series by country in Africa. You'd expect an encyclopedia to have such articles anyway such as ] especially one of of this size!!! Can I just ask how you came about lecturing on wikipedia in Kampala? ] <sup>]]</sup> 11:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I was visiting Kampala YMCA, for the second time, to teach go; and managed to get an invitation out of an IT networking society; which laid on a room in a hotel for the talk. Quite well attended, in fact. ] 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wow great stuff! Hopefully more and more people can get Internet access in the poorer regions of the world and beat poverty. All the best ] <sup>]]</sup> 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC on editor conduct== | |||
| I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the ] article. You took part in the AfD discussion on the article. The RfC is located ] and I welcome your comments or questions. ] 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Charles, your input would be appreciated regarding whether COI should be policy, rather than a guideline. Discussion ]. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|],}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: <br><center>'''redirect to article that's been deleted'''</center><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. '''Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --] 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edits to ] article== | |||
| Considering the controversy surrounding ] and the fact that the word "Straussian" is used pejoritively by critics of neoconservatism and the War in Iraq, I was surprised to see these edits that you added to the ] article. Unless I missed something, I do not see how these sources justify labeling ] a "Staussian" when he has not self identified as such. I am particular concerned about this rationale offered in one of the references: "Orwin is concerned to argue against identification of Strauss as a ], and other positions." What does this mean, exactly? That his concern that Strauss not be identified with neoconservatism is evidence that Orwin should be identified with Strauss? Just because someone studied under Bloom and Mansfield does not mean they are part of a Straussian secret society. To me, this kind of labeling should follow the same sort of guidelines as calling someone Jewish, for example. Having said that, I just reviewed the ] guideline, and I can't find the part about "the subject of the article self identifying with the belief in question." I would have sworn it was there. Perhaps the guideline has changed, but I thought it was a good policy. I have removed the reference to Strauss from the article pending your explanation. Regards, ] 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove | |||
| :You are in the wrong here, in fact, in removing relevant sources. When it said that he is often called a Straussian by others, is that not true? If some call him a Straussian and others deny that, then we have a controversy, and NPOV says we report both sides. I am reverting your cut of sources for all of this. Please feel free to improve the article, by adducing aother sources, or finding better ways to express the point. But you are not improving it by simply cutting out sources. ] 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::With respect, CM, saying I am in the wrong does not make it so. You disagree with me, which is different. So allow me to make the case. I am questioning the relevance of your sources. The only one that indicts Clifford Orwin as a "Struassian" (and make no mistake, it is an indictment) is the last one, written by ] in reply to a critique by Grant Havers titled "Strauss versus the Straussians: A Reply to Professor Gottfried" which criticizes Gottfriend: | |||
| :::As if associating Strauss with neoconservatism is not enough, Gottfried blames his students (and thus Strauss) for subjecting "the morally impoverished American right" to the "warmed-over rhetoric of Saint-Juste and Trotsky," which then explains the Straussian objective to transform the world in a violent "neo-Jacobin" manner In short, the Straussians are left-wing versions of a pseudo-Right. Yet it is simply mind-boggling that Strauss, whose life’s work systematically critiqued the foundations of the historicism which shaped the various schools of Marxism in the 20th century, could ever be associated with these historicist revolutionaries. | |||
| ::In his reply to this "courteous critic", Gottfried says: | |||
| :::Should we not generalize about a Straussian-neocon connection in view of such exemplary figures as Allan Bloom, the Kristol family, Paul Wolfowitz, Harvey Mansfield, Richard Perle, John Podhoretz, Thomas Pangle, David Frum, Clifford Orwin, etc., etc.? The one qualification that might be in order is that while Straussians are usually neocon intellectuals, not all neocons are Straussians." | |||
| ::So a critic of 'Straussians' and 'neoconservatism' thinks of Orwin as a 'Straussian' (and not in a nice way, which is typical). So the article labels Orwin as a 'Straussian' with whatever emotive content the reader brings with him to the article, whether it fairly represents Orwin's views or not. | |||
| ::The other sources you claim to be relevant do not support your contention at all. Orwin's essay "Reading Leo Strauss" proves only that Orwin wrote about Strauss. He says "Although Smith is too young to have known Strauss, he did study with Straussians (as Strauss's students tend to be called).." Hence Orwin is a Straussian? That's dubious. | |||
| ::And last we have Geoff Bakewell's book review of Orwin's ''The Humanity of Thucydides'' which contains a footnote that reads "O acknowledges a profound debt to Leo Strauss' ''The City and Man''." Hence Orwin is a Straussian? Original research. At worst, it is an attempt to stigmatize a living person by labeling him a Straussian. Make no mistake, the term "Straussian" is used pejoritively by critics of Strauss, neoconservatives, and those who would link together Strauss and the War in Iraq. If Gottfried's statements aren't enough, look at the for the search terms . | |||
| ::Here is another difficulty to consider. From the ] article: "The term "Classical Marxism" is often used to distinguish between "Marxism" as it is broadly understood and "what Marx believed", which is not necessarily the same thing." So apparently Karl Marx may not have been, strictly speaking, a Marxist! Or maybe, Marxism (as generally understood) is not really Marxism (as understood by Marx). This is a good example of why I'm not crazy about the term "Straussian." Unless, of course, the subject of the article considers himself a Straussian. | |||
| ::Relevant Misplaced Pages editing guidelines: | |||
| ::] – “Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.” | |||
| ::] – “Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.” | |||
| ::] – “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed.” | |||
| ::Your last comment "Please feel free to improve the article, by adducing aother sources, or finding better ways to express the point. But you are not improving it by simply cutting out sources" seems to go against the burden of evidence. Citing sources is not the same as citing reliable sources. The burden is on me to make sure your edits conform to a neutral point of view? How did labeling Orwin a Straussian improve the article? In my opinion, when you remove biased and poorly sourced material from the Misplaced Pages, you improve both the quality of the article and protect the integrity of the Misplaced Pages. ] 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove | |||
| Slow down, there. Where you say ''make no mistake, it is an indictment'' about being a ], you are leaping ahead to the conclusion. Our article on ] says simply enough that some followers of Strauss self-identify as that. Now, are you really saying that 'Straussian' is more than 'follower of Strauss'? If so, perhaps the Leo Strauss article is more worthy of your attention; so that ] becomes more than a redirect there, and whatever the point is can be made much more explicit. | |||
| I'm not also not contending much on my own behalf. I added some sources quickly while the article was subject to an AfD. There may well be better sources, and an improved way to express the point; I was being quite sincere there. Since it was at AfD, my point was to establish notability of Orwin. If you just cut the whole business of where he is in his interest as a political theorist/historian of political thought, whatever, you undermine the notability again. ] 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't mean you, CM. I meant Gottfried. He was not using the term affectionately. Historically, many students of Strauss referred to themselves as Straussian, that's true. But since then, conspiracy theorists and critics of war (including the LaRouche movement) have decided that Leo Strauss was somehow responsible for some kind of illiberal teaching that corrupted a neoconservative cabal of "Straussians" to take control of American foreign policy and launch a war for American empire under false pretenses. The term "Straussian" has been hijacked by these critics and conspiracy theorists, applied to conservative members of academia, the media, or goverment who have any relation to Strauss (and having studied under a student of Strauss is more than enough evidence), and used as a means of identifying the guilty members of this alleged secret society. So yes, to be a Straussian in this day and age carries a lot of baggage, whether it is deserved or not, and whether it's true or not. To create a separate article for "Straussianism" (whatever that means) would only encourage more of these fringe theories to be promoted on the Misplaced Pages. I appreciate knowing that you were adding sources to help establish notability for the article, and that your edits did not intend to stigmatize or brand Clifford Orwin in any way. That's been happening a lot, but usually the edits are added by random IP addresses, single purpose accounts, sock puppets, far left critics of the Bush administration, or editors promoting the 9/11 Truth Movement. That's why I was shocked to see that such an established Misplaced Pages editor had added these edits to the Clifford Orwin article. I can see now that I was wrong to assume that you were engaging in labelism or POV pushing, and apologize for not assuming good faith on your part. I'll see if I can find some way to improve the article and maintain its notability while still being fair to the political thought of Clifford Orwin. Thanks for your time! ] 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove | |||
| Please do work on the article. ] 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == McCrea == | |||
| Hey! I was just curious as to what ] is. I noticed the name "Kenneth Schellhase" in it. He is my uncle, so I am wondering what it is about. --] 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a list of names taken from a book by Arianna McCrea. Your uncle is a historian? ] 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::O! :-( My uncle is a somewhat famous doctor. Different guys. But I am a distant relative of the historian. I will check our genealogy. --] | |||
| == My mistake == | |||
| My apologies for mistakenly marking ] for speedy deletion. It was an honest mistake with no malicious intent. I'm relatively new here and am still on the learning curve. --] 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm adding old encyclopedia topics by the hundred (literally), and I obviously don't want to be fighting just to keep them on the site. ] 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Transnistria arbitration == | |||
| I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration. | |||
| On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides. | |||
| How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? ] 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == your pro censorship ruling == | |||
| Is it ok to have in the ] page the following | |||
| ------- | |||
| <small>The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.</small> | |||
| '''This user thinks Misplaced Pages should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.''' | |||
| Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. ] | |||
| ] | |||
| So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses. | |||
| It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored. | |||
| http://transparency.org | |||
| ------- | |||
| ] ] 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably not. And can't you find a more sensible way to make your point, whatever it is? WP is quite entitled to ask people to use space here for the project, and not as personal web space. That's not censorship. ] 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::How would this way look like? I once created a project for that, but this got out of policy deleted. I use the space for the project, it is to keep it clean and policy conform. I was very astonished that ArbCom made a ruling that would deny to one special user the right to collect policy violations. Shouldn't the ArbCom support the policies, support people that stand up for their proper enactment? If what the ArbCom ruled, namely deleting project related material is not ] in your eyes, you should maybe help to rewrite the WP article. ] ] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it is not censorship to say that the User namespace is for certain things and not for other things. You seem to have pressed the point, and now there is a judgement you don't like. That's how it happens: disputes are resolved at ArbCom level this way. ] 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::WP: ''Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.'' That is what the ArbCom ruling supports. All my evidence collections of admin right abuses got deleted. As said above I also did it in the project space, but there it got out of policy deleted too. Where would you collect facts about admin right abuses? ] ] 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, you're not making sense. If we wanted you not to have the right to complain about admin abuse, we would have ruled that you couldn't bring an RfC. You can. That was not what this was about. You can use the mechanisms we have. ] 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Maybe you are not getting sense out of it. | |||
| :::::* Please tell me a page where I could collect evidences of admin right abuses. | |||
| :::::*Please tell me why colleting such is prohibited. | |||
| :::::in the first place I do not want "comments" from others (request for comments), but I want to collect the facts of admin right abuses. Why is this denied? Why is collecting facts denied? ] ] 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, we don't want you to do that. Misplaced Pages is a working environment, not a political playground. Collecting up 'accusations', on this site, is harmful to the Misplaced Pages mission. This is what you are being told. If you are in dispute with an admin or anyone else, use dispute resolution; which has the basic feature that people can reply to you. No one can stop you collecting facts for your own use in your own space somewhere, but we have clearly ruled that this is a negative for Misplaced Pages, when you do it in your User space. If you have to do this, find some web space and do it there. ] contains some basic remarks; your user page is not ''yours'', and it exists to make collaboration easier. We are telling you that your user space is not yours, and your use of it is making collaboration harder. See also 'WP is not a battleground', 'WP is not a soapbox', and other fundamental comments on how Misplaced Pages is run. ] 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Where does dispute resolution allow collecting facts? You say collecting facts on admin right abuses is harmful, do you think the abuses itself could be more harmful? ] - interesting that this is enforced so much on a page that mentions admin right abuses, not so on pages where admins promote physical violence!! Why can admins maintain lists of false facts/defamation about people while I am not allowed to maintain lists of annotated diffs? Why do you think cesorship on abuse reporting helps WP? Why do you suggest that the abuse evidence collectors should work offsite which is really much harder to do, since it will probably miss wiki technology and will miss all the easy back and forth linking when the collecting work is done in the same wiki where the abuses take place? Why does the ArbCom not collect their evidences offsite? Why are the people that call me vandal are not forced to work offsite? If WP is a working environment - why are admin right abuses are allowed kind of "work" and the evidence collecting "work" not? Without the admins abusing their rights it would be a much better working environment. I would like to see certain things changed, but this needs collecting evidences. In how far are the ArbComs pages not political while a little listing of annotated diffs is? Why do you call this laundry list? Why don't you help getting the laundry washed insted of censoring reports of the mere existence of laundry? ] ] 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm here to work, not be a policeman. How about you? You are not making any new point. You are simply expressing a view that you have some rights, and you have been told, completely clearly, that you do not have such rights. ] 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Lol, now you get aggressive? Funny. I was here to work too. I am still here to work. But you help the mobbers, stalkers, admin right abusers etc. I tell you what : you are a corruption supporter, a big censorship man. Great. ArbCom 1RR per week - why???? ] ] 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's how to go about resolving any disputes you have with administrators or anyone else: ]. As listed on this page there are channels available where you can list alleged abuses with the aim of seeking a resolution. ] 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "against heresies" links == | |||
| Your name recently popped up repeatedly on my watchlist. Thanks for your tireless efforts to improve the "Against Heresies" links, etc. ] 13:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Charles E Hill== | |||
| Hey I am editor LoveMonkey and I was hoping to create and article on Professor Charles E Hill and was hoping to ask you for help. | |||
| ] 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you have details such as date of birth, middle name? ] 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notability of ]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|],}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please ]. <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. '''Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --] 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Danishmend Gazi== | |||
| Could you please check the text I drafted in ]. I suggest we change the page title to just ] (and not Ghazi, since it is the ] spelling), with links from all other variants of course, as I saw that you had done. If you go to ] to , and register for a view of ]'s book cited in the article, in page 215, you will see a well-arranged geneaology for the dynasty, since it could be confusing for anyone. Regards. ] 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've moved the page. I'm sure you know more about him than I do; I was quite surprised at the scrappy details in the sources I tried. Go ahead and paste in your draft. ] 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Urantia Revelation == | |||
| I added categories as requested. If there are no other issues, I'll remove the template you placed. ] 06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not me. ] 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Categories on German scholars== | |||
| HI just seen your newest articles on the back log of the new pages. I added or corrected a few categories to your German articles. Note Category:German philologists and Category:German Roman Catholic bishops exist. Keep up the new articles, Regards ] <sup>]]</sup> 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] 09:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| If you have a moment, please take a look at this, which I have just extricated from entanglement with the likes of ] and ] of ]. Plenty of articles need adding, I'm sure, and probably some need pruning. The same goes for the list at ] - ] didn't make the cut. Many of the articles have links to ] or ] also. I have added a redirect for ] to the -ism. Pass it on if you know anyone else with an interest. Thanks, ] 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Concerning Paranormal arbitration. == | |||
| I wanted to know when you would start working on the Paranormal arbitration. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add ] and ] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area ]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add ] and ]. Thanks.] <sup>]</sup> 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You can participate directly in the Workshop page for the case. ] 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm talking about the "Proposed decisions" area found here ]. This area is for <u>arbitrators</u> to enter proposed decisions, Specifically Proposed remedies. I wanted to make sure that specific remedies were not forgotten to be added concerning Martinphi and Davkal since they are the main reasons this arbitration got started in the first place and the most amount of evidence is weighted against them. You can just copy it from the workshop into the "Proposed remedies" area for the arbitrators to vote on.] <sup>]</sup> 11:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I know that. Your use of the word 'overlooked' suggested a lack of familiarity. A selection of proposals from the Workshop are brought forward by the Arbitrator who writes up the case. I or any other Arbitrator can indeed add proposals. I would need to know more about why you think the case now in Voting is deficient. It seems to be one of the more complex cases, indeed, with a number of editors named as involved. ] 11:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The arbitration was initiated by ] due in most part to the bias and disruptive editing by ]. Much more evidence exists implicating ] as well. For ]'s evidence please see ]. There is a lot of evidence that he gathered up concerning the actions of ] and so far there is no vote for the arbitrators to take actions against either ] or ]. The editors involved in the arbitration agree almost unanimously on banning ] from articles related to the Paranormal (or from Misplaced Pages all together) as well as ]. See ] and ] to see what I mean. There is mountains of evidence (In the evidence area) implication both of them specially in disruptive and bias edits but as of yet there is nowhere for the arbitrators to vote in the "Proposed decision" area on proposed remedies.] <sup>]</sup> 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll see this is discussed (offline). ] 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do you mean by "Offline"? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :On the ArbCom mailing list. ] 06:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. You could also add them yourself.] <sup>]</sup> 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == mobbing == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=137852540&oldid=137846299 - like this? They now block me just for fun. No laundry list cited. But they go around and say: "laundry list - you are blocked." ] ] 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == more abuse == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi_%282nd_nomination%29 | |||
| how come the result is blank? ] ] 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :how come that admins can violate vote results ? ] ] 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 1RR per week == | |||
| why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what '''I''' did you think to cure with 1RR per week. ] ] 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I strongly suggest you return to constructive editing of the site. This is your best argument, and my best advice. ] 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you answer my question: why did you vote for putting me on 1RR? ] ] 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Wishart == | |||
| I noticed you were adding descriptions to the list of people with that surname at ]. I corrected your description of Welsh for ], but wondered if it was worth mentioning she is the grand daughter of ] and how this should be represented in the list (or on their articles)?— ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, right, thanks for the correction. It needn't go in the list: descriptions there are supposed to be adequate to the task of finding the article you want, and no more. It can go in the article about Bridget, in a section 'family' at the end; providing that is you have a good source. ] 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == do you think you are a totalitarian king == | |||
| ...that does not have to respond to questions regarding your decisions as a member of ArbCom? Do you think you can "rule" against written policies, because ArbCom is not responsible to anyone but Jimbo? ] ] 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, can you tell me why you think you should have an answer in under three minutes, at a weekend? I normally give one or two answers in relation to ArbCom cases, but when people simply repeat themselves, I think my obligation ends there. I have explained the policy thinking. I have given you the only correct advice (and it is good advice). ] 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I did not think that. I asked you 13 June and you gave a response at 14 June which did not answer the question. As ArbCom member you voted for putting me on 1RR per week, I simply would like to know why. How coe that ArbCom does not need to explain every single rule they impose? Why 1RR per week? The ruling reminds me on ] - no policy cited - just plain 1RR per week. I did not ask for advice - I did ask why 1RR. And this you did not answer. Yes I repeat myself. And again: Why did you vote for putting ] on 1RR per week? ] ] 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == my block log == | |||
| can you have a look at my block log and tell me, which of the blocks I received is the first that is justified by WP written policies? ] ] 12:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If your intention is to post here once every few minutes, then you are being disruptive. ] 12:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::it was not my intention and also did not do this. Have a look at ] and the history of that page. I put the stuff in seperate sections because that are seperate issues. I would really like an answer to this block log question. You should also think about how your ArbCom vote causes disruption in the Misplaced Pages. And yes: I am disruptive. I want to disrupt all the bad blocks and the out of policy admin actions. We need an analysis for that. ] ] 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::According to ], disrupting Misplaced Pages at all to make a point is a breach of policy. You should use the proper channels. If you want clarification of ArbCom decisions, the proper channel is the section on ] for that. You are not actually entitled to a second 'trial' on the pages of Arbitrators. If that were the way, no one would ever serve on the ArbCom. If the ArbCom decides 1RR is a good remedy, that is basically it - decided. You can ask for clarification, you can appeal to Jimmy Wales. ] 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: but that is exactly what I do: I aks for clarification. I don't know what you mean by "2nd trial" .. what would be the first? ] ] 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Chop-logic now. Use the 'clarification' on WP:RFAR. The ArbCom procedure is judicial enough for most people. I suppose most normal folk reading this might not be surprised that you don't engage much sympathy. ] 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Did you know? == | |||
| {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |On ], ], ''']''' was updated with {{#if:{{{4|}}}|facts|a fact}} from the article{{#if:{{{4|}}}|s|}} ''''']'''''{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, and ''''']'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| |} <!-- ], ] --> -- Nice article :) ] <sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub> <small>• 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::I can only claim a small addition to the JE text. Still, fitting these things into the 'pedia is worth it. ] 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Synod of Prague== | |||
| HI Charles I have a request. I have seen the ] red linked and am intigued to learn about it. Is there enough info available to stub it? Hope you are well, ] <sup>]]</sup> 09:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is more than one. 1389, but also one in the eleventh century, one after the Council of Trent ... ] 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :To answer your question: there do seem to be enough sources. However it is probably quite confusing: quite a number of provincial synods in a short space of time. ] 10:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The Original Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive I have been noticing edits in numerous articles. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Your edit to ] == | |||
| Hi. | |||
| I noticed that you created a link to the page entitled "Lyons". This page is a disambiguation page. There are many people, places and companies called "Lyons". To which did you mean to refer? In general, disambiguation pages should not be linked to. For more information, please see ]. Please change your link, replacing it with the name of whichever page is appropriate. ] 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :], naturally - French bishop. It is actually inevitable that in wikifying old encyclopedia articles, like the one on Jandel, links to dab pages are created. Since I spend time also on clearing up by avoiding dab pages, I think I can be permitted to create a few. ] 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Diyako checkuser logs == | |||
| * ] (Possible sockpuppets) | |||
| * ] (Diyako is stale) | |||
| * ] (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him) | |||
| You are receiving this because your username either appears or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant ] (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]). | |||
| Currently ]/] is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have to believe (, , ) there may be a connection as the edit pattern ] in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as ], there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue. | |||
| This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with ] and possible other socks. This is '''NOT''' a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on ] to confirm if you have the logs or not. ] appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have CheckUser powers. ] 16:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Rogue admin == | |||
| Please see my ] and ]. Misplaced Pages seriously needs your help Charles. Thanks. ] 03:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You must be more specific, rather than making generalised charges. For example, if you think statements in articles are not supported by references, add a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template. ] 06:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The articles are weighted in favour of homosexual activist spin on Greek history. Just see the references and the user pages of such editors as ]. He blatantly declares his mission to cast a homosexual shadow all over Misplaced Pages. Pardon me, but an activist agenda just isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. Equalizing opinions on a matter is of prime importance, but they consider any and all non-homosexual (or hetereosexual) takes on these Greek articles as akin to Holocaust denial-level bigotry. They defame the Greeks by caricature, like Paddy the drunk and brawling Irishman. How is it that mass media ethnic stereotypes are glorified here? ] 09:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I know what Misplaced Pages is for: I have been here four years. Instead of ranting at me, why don't you do as I say? All statements here must be referred to reliable sources. You can help by pointing out any statements that are not. ] 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I did not say that the articles were unsourced, but that the editors are one-sided. Why don't they magnanimously reach out to balance edits (I have little patience for legwork), so these are NPOV articles? It is obvious how homosexual treatment of Greek articles is too large, begging a question of '''undue weight''' with regards to content in proportion to Greek studies in general--at Misplaced Pages. It is precisely such an issue that enflames protest and litigation from the Greek community. Greece once recieved anthropological tourism, but homosexuality has supplanted that focus. That's shameful to a country that is not a "gay village", but a high-brow and seriously important beacon of European culture. ] 09:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, obviously undue weight is an issue of concern ''within single articles'': it comes under NPOV policy. Since there is no imposed limit of detail of treatment of any topic (based on good sources), the balance of articles as a whole is determined by what others are writing on other topics. The standard attitude is to encourage the writing of ''more'' about other topics, not to impose some quota. ] 10:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Does one ''have to'' take charge of the situation by making changes to POV-imbalanced articles, in order for something to be done? I can't act high-handed and I know it would become an edit war, because of the controversial nature innate to the subject. That's why I made my complaints known to people I "know" are absolutely able to do "something" about it. I am a little afraid of taking something like this into my own hands, choosing the path of least resistance. All I meant to do, was make a complaint and there would hopefully be something done to redress a grievance. I was essentially mocked by the first admin (]), who blasted in my presence by calling the complaint "trolling" and deleting the case I laid forth on relevant article talk pages. After talking down to me, he has gone off to do other things. Now, I have already been engaged in the losing side of a convincing debate with ] to see if he is not also going to think the situation is unimportant to worry about. Everybody needs the respect, but I fear that certain groups are not willing to share in this reciprocal concept with the Greeks. Those are namely; the Enlightenment disparagement of Greeks as homsexual degenerate Ottoman slaves, Turkish control of Constantinople, genocide of Armenians, invasion of Cyprus and furthermore, the ancient and salted wound of the ]. These are all hot-buttons for Greeks, albeit irrelevant for most Westerners. I am not Greek, so I am trying to share my empathy for their causes and hopefully, something good will come of it here. Please see ]. ] 10:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to have some misconceptions. It would be very useful, indeed, if issues of 'systemic bias' could be solved (a) without 'legwork', (b) with no engagement of those who perceive it, and (c) by some central mechanism. To take, for example, the Fourth Crusade. We want to have a neutral treatment, in line with good contemporary scholarship. Someone has to research and write that. I have come across some such treatments here, but they needed work. Always work. I don't know how anyone can really believe a major encyclopedia can be written without work. ] 10:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Another example of Greeks being discriminated against, is the Aryan ideology of some like Arthur Kemp--who is lauded by Stormfront, like a British Israelist who says modern Greeks are frauds without rightful claim to their ancestors' glory, but that it belongs to other people Kemp finds more noble. I presented an example of a plaintiff in the matter to AnonEMouse, Hellenic scholar Dienekes Pontikos. Since Pontikos is in defence of his own people, AnonEMouse would consider him an "activist"--loaded with suspect as regards his positions. Of course, he sees no conflict of interest when homosexuals speak for their own movement. This double-standard is exactly how he dealt with "Greco Report" dot com, so I am obviously having no voice with which to help the Greeks have a voice here. The shouts aren't loud enough, even though the major news outlets reported the outrage of Greek nationals resorting to ligitation over Oliver Stone's cinematic portrayal of Alexander the Great: | |||
| '''I was offended at the burglar who stole my friend's car and complained to the constable, who then handed me the keys to his wagon--but not his pistol, yet telling me to do his job.''' | |||
| The roguery of the administration, is really just shirking watchdog status and blaming victims. I would not want to be mistaken for an Admin due to this apparently widespread disorder of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ] 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :To repeat, ''you must be more specific, rather than making generalised charges.'' I have no idea how Stormfront got into this discussion. I'm quite clear that simply making accusations is not going to change anything. ] 10:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The evidence is in the edits, in the statements of editors involved and their blatant disregard for NPOV through these activist words of their manifesto agendas. It's all about seeing the forest for the trees, which happens to be better than pedantics. Anybody can compare a version of one article with how it might be, given a bit more balance. That is a common enough issue for veterans such as yourself. I don't exactly contest their championed sources and end of the POV spectrum, but I would hope for NPOV and honesty on their parts. If they assume the responsibility of editing an article, then they MUST BE NPOV at the outset and own up to only taking one side as an unprofessional faux pas. I never edit an article with only one side in mind. These guys obviously don't know how to do that, but I am not an Admin and so it is not my responsibility to spank their bottoms for academic misbehaviour. ] 10:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You can't have it both ways. If there is a NPOV issue with an individual article, there is good policy to handle that. You simply didn't answer what I said about the Fourth Crusade. If you have some difficulty sticking to a narrow point and discussing this, then, yes, it makes it harder to engage in editorial work here. But that is not Misplaced Pages's fault. ] 10:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am not a point-for-point/tit-for-tat, tedious debater on academic tidbits. I leave that up for the professionals, because I know damned well that I am an amateur. I only contribute to a subject if I find something out unexpectedly, or by chance discovery. On this matter, I simply called impropriety how I saw it in the dedicated article versions of a few editors, rather than ]. Their hands are in the cookie jar, but you unwittingly want to unnecessarily complicate the issue. Or, you could be deliberately trying to tire me into submission--out of lackadaisical disinterest in what's at stake. ] 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How about addressing the fact that the admin who reverted my complaints on relevant talk pages, also threatened to block me? He is dedicated to the status quo of the articles, so abusing his authority. That is the second impropriety I witnessed, but it was ad hominem and condescending in nature. Where is your concern about Admin image? Yours may suffer for ignoring his debaseful attitude. ] 11:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]: ''The practice of posting similar messages to more than a few users' talk pages, for example to solicit a certain action - is very strongly discouraged.'' ] 11:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for instructing me how to behave, but all I was lobbying about, was empathy for the Greeks--hardly a crime, or is it? ] 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This a voluntary, working community. There are some basic norms and approaches. ] 11:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not asking for a witchhunt or smackdown, but a bit more sensitivity when it comes to stereotypes of national identity. This is actually an issue that comes up all the time with the Holy Land, so my behaviour should come as no surprise. You should be proud I picked you, a decent apple out of the barrel. So, I am not soliciting a Political Action Committee, for example. I was going to file an RFC, but I'm not really technologically hip with all the formatting and like. ] 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :An RfC is an aspect of dispute resolution, and serves mainly to define more clearly the issues under dispute. You may not need an RfC; but it seems to me that you do need the clarification. ] 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Clarification; there we go... I'm not certain how this problem could be handled, other than my referencing to some admins that certain policies have been violated with regard to how some editors have been defiantly creating self-opinionated articles and likewise weaseling versions of articles that suit their own POV best, on extremely controversial and touchy subjects. If this were the old days, it would be a duel. Systemic bias that defames entire nations can cause lots of violence. Just look at Islamist violence. At least Greeks are more civil and so am I. ] 11:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] is guilty of ] and ], in addition to the other serious charges I already laid out earlier. Do I have to Wikilink to ], because repeating the allegation so many times otherwise would have no effect? ] 11:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, if you claim advocacy, and (as you say) you don't want a witchhunt, we are left with defining some basis for improvement, that could be implemented. Articles can be fixed up. ] 11:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It would be nice to see a warning given to Haiduc of the transgressions he has done to Wikipolicy, because I am certain he would laugh in my face and dismiss me as a bigot without addressing his own behaviour that negatively affects other people. Furthermore, there should be something of a caveat for the articles in question. There are wikilinks about "NPOV" and such, in sections or tops of article pages. Unfortunately, I'm a little winded from being bashed by the first Admin to come my way (and the similar dismissive comments made by others in his wake, as I came to the subject with ''caritas'' in my heart, not malice or vengeance--but I am Christian and know God's words on being persecuted for doing in His Name). I would like him to be talked to as well. I am not requesting a limitation of editing privileges, block, ban or otherwise punitive consequence for their actions to the Greeks on the one hand and to myself, on the other. ] 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, you are not logged in. IP number editors have few rights. You have been told (justifiably) that you are spamming User talk pages. The way it works is that those who operate within policy, as logged-in users, can expect greater protection. I, or anyone else, who discussed this matter with User:Haiduc would be talking to a colleague, rather than issuing a warning or otherwise trying to make a point based on some sort of hierarchy here. That is not how it works. ] 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Bureaucracy seems to be a favoured arm-rest and filibuster for Wikipedians. Are you not your brothers' keeper? I think I have said enough. The rest, I leave in the memories of at least 5 Admins who have blown me off with some legalistic contrived excuse to shun and dismiss their human brothers. Thanks a lot for the lessons learnt about appointed authority here, including displays of invested integrity. ] 12:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Shrug. I wonder how you think a project managing 1800000 web pages that ''anyone'' online can edit could possibly operate without some framework. It is mininal bureaucracy, in fact. ] 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Apologies == | |||
| I'm quite sorry for what I was saying and doing a few weeks ago. I stopped taking my various medicines for a time and, well, you saw the result. I'm usually much less confrontational and... crazy. My apologies. ] 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I understand. ] 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Effective results in number theory == | |||
| Hey Charles, I was wondering if you could take a look at the ] article, it seems to be in quite a state. Alternatively, you could point me in the direction of a good resource for this topic. Either way, I think the article deserves to be more than it is now. Cheers--]<sup>]</sup> 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've worked on it. I came across this posting from ] which seems pretty interesting in getting the logicians' POV on this. At the back of my mind were some things ] was saying about prof unwinding, the ] and what Littlewood thought. The difficulty of course is finding intelligible things written down. There is also Shafarevich's 'joke': something like showing the Mordell-Weil group cannot be effectively computable, and so showing Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer must be unprovable ... now Manin did write that down in the mid-1960s in Russian Mathematical Surveys. ] 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, thanks for the speedy edits, the article is very much improved.(Now if something could be done about those redlinks. :) I will add them to my list o' things to do. Be warned that Diophantine equations are not even remotely my specialty, but with JSTOR it is hard to go wrong.) In an unrelated note, thank you for copyediting the articles I have created recently, it is good to know that someone (You and Michael Hardy as far as I can tell) monitors the new math articles. Cheers and thanks again. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Little context in ]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|] (] '''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. '''Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --] 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Res divina== | |||
| Need help on ]. I saw your edits at Jerzy Liderski's page. I see this man has done some work on Res divina. I need help here.] 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't been able to find anything to add. ] 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Melchizedek== | |||
| seeing this article as a result of a request for speedy, it seemed to me --talking now as a non-admin--that they articles may not have been adequately merged, or that there was consensus to merge, so I restored your version. Good luck with it. ''']''' 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, it seems that ] has been making a right mess of things. At ], ], ]. ] 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not just Bart. Fixed up now - quite a tangle. ] 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for disentangling all that -- I had talked to ] about putting in a requested move to fix the damage he had done, and was going to do it myself if he didn't, but you got it all fixed up already! :) ] 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just no one start all that again ... :) ] 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ever heard of accountability? == | |||
| Did you ever heard of ]? Do you think you can arbitrarily make decsions and than not be accountable for them? Why did you vote for putting me on 1RR? And yes: disrupting abuses and corruption is good! Reveal the truth! Be transparent with respect to admin actions! ] ] 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course I have heard of accountability, you tiresome person. We have dispute resolution precisely so that admin actions can be scrutinised, just as any other actions on Misplaced Pages. You seem to think you can have a parallel system of your own, and just reject the system there is. Well, there is nothing there. ] 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Its obvious you have a long history of persistent ] and ] editing, your repetitive comments here being the latest example. There are quite a few examples of revert wars you have entered into to make some form of ]. How is it not an appropriate remedy to place you on 1RR to curb your behavior? ] 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Protestant POV pushing at ]== | |||
| Just thought you might be interested in ] attempts to push a Protestant POV at ], see for example . | |||
| ] 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =={{{header-text|]}}}== | |||
| A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the ], because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on ] subjects and should provide references to ] that ] their content. | |||
| Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that ] wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template '''<code>{{tl|hangon}}</code>''' to the page and state your intention on the article's ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Empty-warn --> ] 10:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Contested at ]. No way is this a speedy, and you are wasting my time. Perfectly valid stub article; see CSD 1. ] 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Latin phrases == | |||
| I was just reading ], and failed to translate a Latin phrase you used ("''nil de mortuis nisi bonum''"). However... I searched for it and eventually found: ]. I was wondering if your word order makes the meaning different, or whether the Misplaced Pages article has the more correct word order, and whether you might consider either translating the phrase or wikilinking it? :-) ] 12:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Latin word order is relatively flexible (18 Google hits for mine). But I did think this was quite well known: 'do not speak ill of the dead', but the Latin is more apt. ] 12:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, I got the general thrust of what you were saying there, but I thought you might be interested in the article, and I thought others (who might not know Latin) might be interested as well. ] 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Interesting" that the article points out that lawyers take this in a way diametrically opposite to ordinary folk. ] 12:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yup. I stuck something on the talk page over at the case, though as the case is about to close soon, probably only a few people will see it. Maybe I should hurry over to ]? ] 12:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:53, 23 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Drawshield File:Blazon of Champion de Crespigny baronets, of Champion Lodge (1805).svg
Hi
Thanks for uploading File:Blazon of Champion de Crespigny baronets, of Champion Lodge (1805).svg
As you will have realised the 2nd and third quarters (2nd and 3rd azure three bars argent)look distorted.
A workaround on Drawshield that produces a better looking result is 2nd and 3rd barry of 7 azure and argent
You can see the result at https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Champion_de_Crespigny-17
I wish the lions in the 1st and 4th quarters were not distorted but ...
Regards Matilda 04:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Matilda: Thanks for getting in touch about this image from 2021. I have uploaded a new version at File:Escutcheon of the Champion de Crespigny baronets of Champion Lodge (1805).svg.
- There are various improvements that can now be made, as Drawshield develops. On the 2nd and 3rd quarters, the blazon is definitely azure three bars argent, for Vierville de Vierville. Using barrulets doesn't look good, so there is a limit to what I can do there.
- The old image is now marked "superseded" on Commons. I am gradually providing replacements for Drawshield images such as this one. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - my father has managed to adjust the lions (I htink using Microsoft Paint) so an improved version at Wikitree:https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Champion_de_Crespigny-17-1
- Drawshield is great but there can be limitations
- Regards
- Matilda 05:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. There are people here who produce better shields with software, but I have covered a lot of ground with Drawshield. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
CorruptionOfEconomics
Thank you so much, Charles, for creating the article page.
If you are interested as a "lead author" there is a compiled version of the text here https://globalartscollective.org/corruption-of-economics.htm#top, or I cand lend you a copy of the second edition, 2022, from Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd.
- PS. I just seen the latest version. You are obviously interested...
Janosabel (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will be able to get a library copy of the book. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Pregnant man" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Pregnant man has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 12 § Pregnant man until a consensus is reached. LIrala (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings!
.JPG)
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
Best wishes for the season, and beyond! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)