Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vedexent (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 25 February 2006 (→Roman Republic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

*Archive 1
*Archive 2

Advice

Glad to hear you're doing better. If you want my advice of the matter, I'd first say you should take things one point at a time. Changing all of them makes it much more susceptible to a revert because of individual changes. I recognize the location issue is the most important to you (though I think it is for DG as well). So here's how I see it. Disambigs are primarily used for navigational aid between Misplaced Pages articles, not ideas. So, if the topic is truly that important, the location theory, perhaps you should write an article about it. This would present the theory NPOV-ly with its detractors and supporters. If you are up to that (which is, after all, more important for the encyclopedia than battling over a disambig), and it might need to survive an AfD, then it would need to be in the disambig. Without an article, the case for it's inclusion seems more strained, since it's seems to be overreaching out of POV. Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving the dragon

The procedural concerns are valid (though see my points in the archived discussion) but there was a reasonably solid majority for the form I preferred. By the admin's count the vote went 21/15 in favor of it and after that it was discovered the User:CDThieme had voted with his sockpuppets, bringing the human vote on one side down a few notches.

On the other hand this really wasn't worth spending so much time on and I probably should just have let Jonathunder have his way at the time and spent the time writing articles instead of arguing about spelling. - Haukur 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Like many proceedural points, this has substantive implications, however. It has now been demonstrated that someone can unilaterally move an article between the Anglicized and Icelandic spellings, and be fairly sure any appeal to WP:RM will result in no consensus. And remember, this works for moves in both directions.

I expect this to happen again. Whatever the merits of the present case, I think this is a bad thing. It means a lot of futile WP:RM discussion, and it will not encourage comity. The way to suppress it is to establish a custom of status quo ante, so that the unilateral move will have no advantage over the proper course: bringing such moves to WP:RM in the first place. Septentrionalis 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point and I too think that Process is Important. But I would really like not to go deeply into this again. Jonathunder and I have since had rapprochement and the next time a debate occurs it will hopefully be in a more cordial atmosphere and I think we will at the very least manage to agree on procedural issues. For the record I don't want to push my views through some bureaucratic or procedural loophole against the will of the community.

The procedural issues were discussed at length at the time. If you have the patience for it, and I wouldn't really recommend it since it makes for aggravating reading, most of that discussion can be found in Talk:Níðhöggr/archive1, Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves/Archive_5#Gaming_the_system and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive56#CDThieme_sockpuppetry.

Incidentally I'd like to invite you to give your view at Talk:Grœnlendinga saga on the name of the article. All the best. - Haukur 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more link from the procedural discussion Though, as I implied, there are a lot of more fun and productive things to do than wading through this. - Haukur 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

answer

I've answered your question at the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Netoholic. Hope that clarifies my position. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel

Thanks yes I read the answer by Septentrionalis, but as I had not moved the mouse over the name I did not realise that Septentrionalis was an alias for User:Pmanderson. I have not replied to you posting there because I think you have answered all my questions on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

I just noticed your return. Welcome back! -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've always regretted the decision of registering under my real name, so I changed my username as soon as I found out it was possible. Other than that, I'm trying to figure out a way to keep up with my watchlist... -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that you were back today, again, welcome back - your contribution is always welcome at the Democratic Peace Theory page, which has gone rather quiet recently and even, believe it or not, been labeled as a good article! Robdurbar 13:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, on a mostly unrelated subject, you might want to take a look over this AfD vote on a POV fork. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 03:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine

I have to go on what I feel when I recuse. I can't just go on what seem to be the facts. If I can't make a fair decision I need to recuse. I wrote the original article which contained prominent links to totalitarianism and dictatorship and addressed the massive human rights violations which have resulted from Communist Parties seizing power without democratic support. The current article seems to me pathetically lame, being barely factual and essentially unsourced. I don't think much of Ultramarine as an editor, but not much of his opponents either. There was very good reason to recuse. I was so upset that I created a fork, originally spending my own money on hosting. There is no way I could have been fair to anyone involved. Fred Bauder 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

DPT

Sorry, I wasn't aware that edits on this page were ongoing. Robdurbar 17:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Im not gonna argue over the redirects though I worry as to whether there'll just be another edit war on this article... Robdurbar 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Im happy for you to make the changes... I must admit I would have created an article 'studies concerning the dpt' rather than 'stuides supporting the dpt', but hey ho :) Robdurbar 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate - you're probably right - but as you can probably tell, I've lost patience with the whole situation (plus Im wasting all time having on List of best-selling music artists which seems to get vandalism on a more-than-daily basis) Robdurbar 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that the DPT article may be a lost cause. It seems as though Ultramarine is insistent in deifying R.J. Rummell to the point that the article has lost its objectivity. If it were up to me the article would be scrapped and redone altogether in order to show both points of view. As I have demostrated on the talk page for DPT, it seems as thought this user is wholly against NPOV in this case, perhaps so much so as to be vandalism? -- Scaife 19:53, 06 February 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion with the understanding that someone will probably take it off essentially negating it. The intent is to get a conversation going. -- Scaife 20:10, 06 February 2006 (UTC)

With reference to what you worte me, I am afraid that the Bremer article that you referenced is unavailable on JSTOR, so it might be awhile before I can collect it at the library. However, on pg 337 of the Bremer article on the DPT page states that although he believes that the dyadic theory has proven that democracy is an important factor in eliminating conflict, more studies should be under taken to understand completely what the mechanism is... BTW this is an awfully obscure reference, what gives? -- Scaife 22:55, 08 February 2006 (UTC)

Chimaera

Thank you, Septentrionalis, for alerting me to the mediation process; I did post quite a detailed comment yesterday at about teatime, but today I see that it is non-existent. Anyway luckily it seems it wasn't crucial to the outcome. TobyJ 15:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Single anon edit VfD pages

Hi. I want to point out that the single anon edit VfD pages which I've nominated for deletion are not real "deletion records", but only appear to be because of their titles. No debate or discussion occurred on any of these pages, so they were probably never linked from the articles or transcluded to the VfD page. Certainly no deletions resulted from them, as no votes were cast. BDAbramson T 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that deletions were ever decided on the basis of a single anon edit? With no other commentary, even from the person making the deletion? Actually I do know something about old VfD's - they were made in templates not in Misplaced Pages space, because the old wiki code would not permit transclusion of pages. These, therefore, were initially created in the wrong space! BDAbramson T 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Chaos theory and counting!

Hi, I answered your question there. Lakinekaki 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you responded to me elsewhere, you need not reply here. Septentrionalis 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many dubious afd descisions

That's odd. I don't recall having made many AFD descisions at all, especially not in the last half year or so. I'm puzzeled! What did I do wrong, and how can I fix it in future? Kim Bruning 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, my first, last, and only foray into TFD. The template in question did violate policy, but people opposed its being speedied. I've mostly stayed away from most templates since then, since many templates do not contribute to the encyclopedia directly anyway.

Thanks for reminding me of that set of mistakes. I would like to point out that people who try to regularly get things done will also regularly make mistakes, as an unfortunate consequence (I'm not a politician, as you may have noticed :-) . I hope that you're reassured that I do actually learn from my mistakes, and try not to make them again. Kim Bruning 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if it hadn't seemed heavy handed, it wouldn't have been a mistake. I finally reached a consensus with the creator of the template, who wasn't at all unhappy with me. What I hadn't reckoned with was the altered perception of admins on wikipedia. Before, admins were just nice users who'd earned some extra buttons (or at least were trusted not to blow up the wiki with them). Now apparently they're demigods (or minor demons). Seeing as I'll just be on the reserve bench by the looks of it, I hope to be able to work on that latter problem in the coming year, if possible. :-) Have a nice evening! Kim Bruning 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oof, it's been a long time for me too. More than 3 months for sure. If I come across it, I'll drop you a line. Kim Bruning 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, found here. Actually one of 2 situations might come to mind: either: Misplaced Pages:Conlangs/Votes or Template:Vote_bar. The latter being kept is a little tricky, as it needs to be watched carefully. :-/ Kim Bruning 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman provinces

In most cases I agree with your concerns about long running names and standardisation. However, there is precedent for standardised place-names as with cities in the USA. And the Ottoman subdivisions present particular problems. First, there is the case of these province names overlapping with different provinces of other countries of the same name especially those in present-day Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. For example, the Ottoman Basra, Baghdad, or Mosul provinces were radically different beasts from the current Iraqi “provinces” and some of the provinces are now their own country (Egypt, Cyprus). I would agree with the use of vilayet but most of the provinces were eyalets before the mid-19th century and some used other terms (e.g. khedivate) as well as the informal term “pashaluk.” See Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire for details. LuiKhuntek 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

About Özi Province, you say that “calling something that included Bessarabia "Silistra Province" is just wrong.” I’m not sure what this means but the Ottoman Silistra eyalet existed for over 100 years and included the Black Sea coast from Istanbul to present-day Ukraine and at times stretched all the way to Vidin. Only one source calls it only Özi (Imber) and others explain that Özi was an alternate name for Sislistra. Özi could not have been used consistently since the Ochakiv (Özi) area was often outside of the eyalet system. Maps of this can bee seen at:

or in Paul Robert Magocsi’s Historical Atlas of Central Europe. (2nd ed.)

Donald Edgar Pitcher’s An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire has both maps and a text explanation of this (p.128) that cites original Ottoman records. LuiKhuntek 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

“Province of Timişoara” doesn’t use a Turkish/Romanian hybrid – it’s the current English form. None of the other provinces use the Turkish form for areas now outside of Turkey. (e.g. Bosnia, Herzegovina, Egypt, Baghdad) (And it’s no more anachronistic than Serbia for Servia, Kosovo for Kossovo, Rumelia for Roumelia, Romania for Rumania, etc.) LuiKhuntek 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Economics of fascism

That article is a POV mess from start to finish. It relies almost exclusively on libertarian authors and is slanted in their favour. The comparisons with the New Deal are just the worst part of it. But I've learned my lesson from the whole Ultramarine affair. This time, I'll look for a large collection of sources first, then go in to fix the article. Expert POV pushers, like Ultramarine and RJII (the author of the Economics of fascism article) use similar strategies: They support their POV by selectively quoting the sources that agree with them, and then arrogantly claim that their POV is widely accepted opinion (witness RJII saying in the Talk page that most historians believe the New Deal was economic fascism). Thus, the best way to counter them is to amass a large number of sources that oppose their POV. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting on Eyalet of Temeşvar

I added another rename proposal to Talk:Eyalet of Temeşvar that preserves the Turkish name: Eyalet of Temeşvar → Temeşvar Province, Ottoman Empire

Please (re-)vote if you care to.

LuiKhuntek 07:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sale of the Daily Express

I have added some thoughts on the date of transfer of the Express to Beaverbrook on Talk:Cyril Arthur Pearson. Perhaps you'd like to take a look when you get the chance. Regards, BillC 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Menander

Hi, I saw that you are trying to update the article of Menander the greek commediographer, I'm very interested about greek litterature in general and drama specifically, I would if you'd like expand a bit Menander, i wrote some on menander talk things that I will do if you agree. Thanks for any of your replies. Salutem Filippus dat--Philx 13:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

I have expressed my opinions on the article talk page, if you agree , i'll start that section. --Philx 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the best possible for the reader, although including English translations in a bibliography should make that all right. But why not write the article for the Italian wikipedia first, and then translate, which should save both of us a bit of work, and show what you have in mind? Septentrionalis 19:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if i bother you, but honestly, I can't get, your point, should I translate the critics of italian wiki because critics is present there? So why not start a new section in en wiki adding italian soureces and english ones? Thank you for any reply --Philx 20:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Phil, I think he means, why dont you translate the work into Italian first on the Italian Wiki, then translate that into English and move it over here to the En Wiki. If you want me to help on this part, plz let me know. Ciao for now--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi septemtrionalis, I understood your point of view about the sources, i'm trying to recover the soureces in it wiki, when i'm done with the sourcing and wikification i'll start to translate, Regards. --Philx 13:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of the JAO

Hi, Pmanderson! Thanks for moving the JAO divisions article to the "the"-version; that was totally my mistake. I was wondering, however, if you would be able to help me resolve another problem of the similar kind. I am not completely sure if a definite article is needed with the names of Russian krais and oblasts (such as Primorsky Krai or Tambov Oblast). On one hand, it should be used (e.g., in the French Republic→in the Primorsky Krai); on the other hand the Primorsky Krai sounds quite silly (at least to me, but I am not a native speaker). I was unable to find any definitive guidelines regarding this, and Google returns both variants (with most of the hits being from the English-language Russian websites anyway). Any advice will be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It has generally been accepted to use "krai" and "oblast" instead of "territory" and "province". This is partly because there are no established English translations of both words ("territory" and "province" are by far the most commonly used equivalents, but they are not by any means standard), and partly because in reverse translation "territory" corresponds to Russian "территория" (territoriya), and "province"—to Russian "провинция" (provintsiya), which are separate words on their own, both of which have subsets of meanings competely unrelated to the meanings of the words "krai" and "oblast". Provintsiyas also used to be administrative subdivisions of Russia in the past, which certainly does not help matters as far as translation of modern terms is concerned.

As for the examples, here are some:

• A common construction: the government of (the?) Primorsky Krai, (the?) Tambov Oblast, (the?) Belgorod Oblast... (a complete list of Russian federal subjects can be found here).
• Standard article intro: (the?) Lipetsk Oblast is a federal subject of Russia (an oblast)...
• a fairly common sentence construction: This oblast borders the Republic of Mordovia, (the?) Vladimir Oblast, (the?) Tula Oblast,... Here, "the" before the "Republic of Mordovia" is obvious, as it would be if constructs like "the Oblast of Tula" and "the Krai of Khabarovsk" (cmp. with "the state of California") existed (they do not).

An interesting part is that when "oblast" is replaced with "province" (and "krai"—with "territory"), the definite article sounds a lot more natural: the Tula Province, the Stavropol Territory, but it still probably is incorrect (cmp. with the Wisconsin State, which sounds plain wrong unless it's a part of a construct such as the Wisconsin State Lottery).

I don't know if these examples are going to help, but if you could look into this, I'd certainly much appreciate it. My English isn't too shabby, but little things like this are what separates native and non-native speakers, and articles have long been a personal weakness of my own. I am somewhat afraid, however, that this may require help of a professional English teacher/educator. Reference materials certainly have not been of much help so far.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Democratic_peace_theory#Poland-Lithuania

Tnx for letting me know - I'll take a look and surely comment in a few hours!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Stark

Could you please help to write a biography. I wrote him an e-mail and requested him to release a picture of him to be released under GDFL. Andries 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sig

Why does your signature read a different name? Just wondering. Infinity0 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aristarchus

Thank you for taking the time to answer each and every point. If I ever stumble on a serious argument in wikipedia, I will seriously consider asking for your assistance (with the danger of not agreeing with my point - for sure).--FocalPoint 10:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson/David Dailey

Done. —Cryptic (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll speedy it in 24 hours. Septentrionalis 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

The administrators' noticeboard is somewhat outside my scope as mediator, you're basically requesting outside assistence and advice when you post there.

However, since no one has seen reason to respond and it's already halfway up the page, I've simply removed that section. <innocent look> I take it it shan't be missed.  :-) Kim Bruning 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's stored in the page history, just before 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Kim Bruning 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:The Sejm and most wars.

If I find any references, you'll be the first to know, but my search is drawing blanks here. Nonetheless most is correct, as Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) is a good example of a war which was not voted down by Sejm.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Rummel

Actually he worked on the Correlates of War project with Singer. He took the observations that Singer had made and then codified it into what constitutes a liberal democracy and war, as well as expanding the time frame. I included the references, and this is how I read it. If you read it differently, let's change it. --Scaife 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic peace theory

As you probably already know, I archived the talk page because it was a bit too cumbersome and most of the converstaions were dead. Well you know who has decided to crusade about it. Let me know what you feel about it, I think that you can just make a link to the prior discussion or start another one. I wasn't starting anything but he sure thinks I was "gaming the system". I hate Poindexter... BTW I am not getting on this thing for awhile, I am really irritated about this. --Scaife 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? You missed alot of fun last night. Look at my talk page I saved some of it. Cheers! --Scaife 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of changed my mind. I was seriously getting irritated last night before Mr. West got on and supported me. Other sections were deleted, but if you look throught the history he was threatening me, browbeating me and making the most inane arguments over semantics. I emplored with him over the span of 4 hours to do exactly what you said. I even returned some of the other articles to compromise, but he could not be satisfied. I really only archived those sections that had either been dead for 7 days or were resolved. If he keeps up, I might initiate another arbitration. This behavior is very disruptive and I am tired of being accused of conspiring against him all the time. I propose that the DPT article is merged with R.J. Rummell and then I can turn my attention to Mother Teresa. :D --Scaife 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So now, DPT has lost its second mediator: UM refused the first, and drove off the second. What do we do now? I mean, we were actually getting somewhere for a while on producing an article. I suppose it couldn't last. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on User Talk:ScaifeRobert A.West (Talk) 16:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Private Message

Look at your alumni account for an urgent private message. See also Margaret Garner. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Faucounau

Hi, I noticed you got involved with this guy at Phaistos disk and Pelasgians who seems so addicted to that Faucounau "Proto-Ionian theory". I feel I have to warn you, in all likelihood this is one of the lesser-desired spillovers from Usenet. There is strong evidence that this anon user is none other than the Usenet persona "grapheus", who in turn is believed by most people on Usenet to be none other than Faucounau himself. Look here: Stylistic comparison between grapheus and Faucounau, and you'll probably recognize a pattern. If my suspicion is correct, there's little hope for him to ever produce anything useful, "grapheus" is an absolutely fanatic, inveterate, single-minded POV-pushing crank. Lukas 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My first requested undeletion! The last version before its second deletion is at User:Pmanderson/proto-Ionian theory as requested :-) - David Gerard 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that User 80.90.57.154 is the same as grapheus. At 15 February 2006 80.90.57.154 was posting with the IP 80.90.39.81 Phaistos_Disc:history. The same did grapheus at groups.google.com. Be warned! Gbrunner 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your question about the linguistic side: I don't know much about it, but there was indeed a long debate about the pre-history of the dialectal divisions between the Greek dialects. There's a fairly accessible summary in the first chapter of G. Horrocks, Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, 1997, ISBN 0-582-03191-5. IIRC, it's much more complex than a simple opposition between a "Risch-Chadwick" and a "Kretschmerian" theory. Risch and Chadwick were prominent participants in that debate, that much is true. The undeleted article is basically correct in describing the "Proto-Ionian theory" as a fringe thing mostly unheard of outside the internet activities of "grapheus"/Faucounau. BTW, that style comparison I quoted wasn't mine, but I still think it's brilliant, and thanks to Gbrunner for providing that further piece of evidence. Lukas 08:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Phaistos disk, especially actually reading Faure -- I had been putting off going to the library.... At this point, it would seem that the best policy is simply to declare consensus and ignore anon. --Macrakis 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine

Haha. Yeah, he appear to be a typical troll. I'm currently involved in several important edit so I don't have time to engae him. I might come back when I have time. Best way is to bait him to violate something obviously out of NPOV. See ya. ~

I cannot agree, especially with the personal attack . Ultramarine is usually editing in good faith; he merely regards all means as justified when Proclaiming the Rummellite Truth.Septentrionalis 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

I have seen your last changes at Phaistos Disc. Did you really want to do this work for every attempt? svoronan lists 50 to 60 attempts until now. I fear we will get a new article at the end of this hard work.

(BTW for Faucounau you will need: A-side first; reading inwards; A-side begins Template:Polytonic...) Kadmos 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at my sandbox. Feel free to edit. Kadmos 03:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: H. --> S. --> F.: To say "based upon" is maybe to strong. But see yourself:

S. starts: "Last Jaunaury (1911) there appeared in Harpers Magazine an essay by Proffesor Hempl, ... we who follow follow reap the advantage of his labour, ..."

F. starts his book from 1999: "A la mémoire de Florence Melian Stawell qui pressentit, la première, la solution de l'énigme."

Between two of them there is only a subset of symbols with a similar meaning/interpretation. For instance H. and S. start in A I with Α/α. But such similarities exist. Never mind, it's not really important. Kadmos 05:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Peace Theroy SHE

To be honest, part of my motivation for deleting was to remove the article from my watchlist. I don't feel I have the requesit expertise in the DPT to get invovled - in hindsight my contributions to the page were probably a bit 'clueless newbie'-esque, and I'm happy to be away from the whole thing. Robdurbar 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)

Regarding the AfD for Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples): could you please provide a link to the previous AfD? Aecis 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Knight

What do you by idealogy, when you mentioned it on the Knight article discussion page? Why do you say that?Zmmz 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WHEELER

I noticed you reverted WHEELER at History of Sparta. He has been adding links to his highly original essays to a number of our articles. Due you think you could have a word with him? He seems convinced that I am the embodiment of evil, so my messages have not had much effect. - SimonP 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see that you two have your own history. Don't worry then, if this continues I'll leave a note at AN/I and try to get a neutral party that way. - SimonP 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Aeneas

Actually, while I agreee that the legend of Aeneas as a founding legend doesn't have a great deal to do with the objective history of the Roman republic, it is important in that it ties the Roman culture into the Hellenistic one - at least in the minds of the Romans.

Were the article The History of the Roman Republic (which will probably be calving off soon), just about the history, then I'd agree. However, since the article is supposed to be an overview of all aspects of the Roman republic, tying it all together is imporant.

I realize that the section on Roman culture hasn't been written for that article yet, but the hooks are there to tie in the sections when someone finally gets around to it. - Vedexent 21:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seem to have an aversion to mentioning the Roman's view of their own historical origins? More to the point, why take out any reference to the founding of the city at all? Histories start at the beginning. If you don't like how a section is written up, then edit it for valid reasons. Ripping out relavant sections completely is not a good thing. If you want to discuss the origins and founding of the city in different terms - say 1/2 archeological 1/2 mythical - that I can see. Blanking that part and pulling the Monarchy period out of some nebulous "once upon a time" seems sloppy to say the least. If there is no certainty, you place the various contending viewpoints together, you don't rip the issue out. - Vedexent 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that I agree with Vedexent. You are simply ripping out stuff that is important, if one is to understand the view the ancient roman had about themselves, without giving any good reasons. Flamarande 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman Republic

Did you read Talk:Roman_Republic#Self-sufficient sections? You didn't respond, you just reverted the change without comment. - Vedexent 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, you're right - I apologize, I incorrectly characterized the change. It's also been suggested that the founding myth be migrated in the Roman Kingdom article, which leaves a single myth, in the Roman Republic, which probably could get rolled back into the article as a single sentence and a {{see|Lucretia}} template. Hasn't happened yet, but that would cut out two sub-section paragraphs and add only a sentence and a link - Vedexent 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)