Pmanderson

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• Archive 8
• Archive 9

---

Mephistopheles

This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.

Yours,

Rich Dengrove User:RDengrove

Incivility at WT:PLACES

Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES [1]. Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.

If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." [2] Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:HARASSMENT. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I'd like to ask you to back off and concentrate on doing something a little more constructive in this new year, such as some actual editing or maybe even creating new articles. To avoid any accusations of favouritism, I am simultaneously making the same request to those who have been your opponents in recent arguments. I don't want to see good/potentially good contributors slipping into this cycle (forgive the pun) of mutual recrimination and the constant arguments are becoming more than a little irritating. Deb (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the short break but hope that you can stay away from B2C from now on - otherwise you may end up getting a kicking and that's not the outcome I would prefer. Deb (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wave dash

I removed the wave dash from that section on WP:MOS-JA for two reasons:

1. Its usage is currently under discussion on the talk page, and there is a consensus that perhaps it should be brought up for a greater discussion and
2. There is no reason to explain why a particular character should not be used twice on the same page. It is already covered in WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media.

Please do not revert, again, and instead initiate discussion on the talk page like a normal editor.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for announcing your revert war. Unless you are doing so again, please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't start them yourself. I have added content concerning the wave dash back to that section, but it is not necessary to have it prohibited twice on the same page, particularly if there is a consensus that it should not be prohibited. Perhaps there would not be a revert war if editors such as yourself and Jpatokal did not find themselves to be the police of WP:AT and the other manuals of style.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

One last try

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR USERS Pmanderson AND Born2cycle

Okay, this really is my last attempt to avoid one or both of you getting blocked. Please please please will you consider the following course of action?

1. Voluntarily stay away from the following pages for a period of one month:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names - it's time for someone else to make the decision to close this down
• one another's talk pages
• the talk pages of articles that you have previously had disagreements over

2. Stop feeling that you need to have the last word - that isn't any kind of victory

If you could both find the self-discipline to follow this suggestion (which I realise I have no right to make), I feel sure you would not regret it in the long run. Deb (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lady Elizabeth Cromwell

Hi. Can you clear this doubt for me please? Was the title of Baron Cromwell, said of Oakham, of Gregory Cromwell a new title or the old title of Baron Cromwell, said of Wimbledon, with its attainder lifted? Konakonian (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC) cracroftspeerage.co.uk says it is the same title, but thepeerage.com says otherwise. Konakonian (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Baron Cromwell

Thank you, then. So, there was never a case where the attainder was lifted only for the smaller titles? Or is it just in case of restoration of a forfeiture? Konakonian (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadamard three-lines theorem

You are probably aware that Hadamard (disambiguation) has been significantly changed by me recently at the request of Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on my talk page.[3] I replied to her request there [4], mentioning that I had previously added quite a lot of content related to Hadamard to wikipedia, including a stub Hadamard's method of descent, needed for another article on spherical functions. Her request resulted in the correction and expansion of parametrix (together with the redirect Hadamard parametrix construction) and the doubling and restructuring of the disambiguation page. I had not finished adding content. You made two small grammatical corrections which were mathematically not quite accurate and I made the statements more precise. You reverted my changes, claiming hounding. But that showed no recognition of the fact that I had in fact been making major changes to that page and articles linking to it. This morning I restored my changes and, having in the meantime created Hadamard three-lines theorem, then added it in the relevant section (complex analysis and convexity). You removed that new link in your edits, with an edit summary WP:HOUNDING. But my last edit summary clearly had "+ 3 lines".[5] You apparently did not check to see what that meant, and so removed the link to the new article I had just created. I wonder if you could please try to act more reasonably? You have followed me to a disambiguation article which I was requested to improve by an administrator, despite being very busy in real life (hence the wikibreak from articles). Please could you stop removing links to new wikipedia articles from the disambiguation page? I have no idea why you have been doing so. Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh

... [6] that's not "ethnic pointmaking" but a straight forward application of the Danzig/Gdansk vote: For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig), hence it should be "Waldenburg (Wałbrzych)" etc.  Volunteer Marek  19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep accusing me of having some idiosyncratic interpretation of the vote. How else would you "interpret" For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland??? Clearly the place shares a history between Germany and Poland. How else would you "interpret" the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. The first reference to Waldenburg appears and hence it "should also include a reference to other names" - Walbrzych. There's not much room for interpretation here, it's all pretty straightforward. Your accusation is completely specious and perhaps bad faithed. Volunteer Marek  22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How to title an article

In order to address the argument that without specific naming conventions article titling would be chaotic and unpredictable, I've attempted to describe the process of determining a title that clearly shows that usually specific naming conventions are not needed. I'm asking a few select individuals to look at it before I open it for general review at WT:TITLE.

If you could take a few minutes to review it and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it. Do you think we could incorporate this or something like it into WP:TITLE? Thanks. Here is the link: User:Born2cycle/how2title. Please leave your comments on the talk page of that subpage, User talk:Born2cycle/how2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks + mediation suggestion

Thank you for your support. There is one place I could offer my services as a mediator on this subject - WT:POLAND, which per previous amendment is the one and only forum where I can discuss all issues. If you'd explain the situation there, I and perhaps others could try to offer our input there. PS. Your page could use archiving. Perhaps you could use automatic archiving, like on my page? It is quite simple, and I could even set it up for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but it could be that I just don't use them. Try asking about it at WP:VPT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about we try to start this over again

From the beginning, clean slate.

• I made my edit with the understanding that the Gdanzig vote was still in force.
• I have never seen anything anywhere that would indicate that the Gdanzig vote is no longer valid. It has been quoted at me, it has been invoked recently by others, all the templates pertaining to it are still up on all the relevant articles' talk pages. So even if it is no longer applicable, please excuse me for thinking otherwise. My edit was made entirely in good faith (I admit to getting somewhat pissed off when you came in obviously assuming otherwise)
• I have been editing Wikipedia for more than six years. During that time, I've observed that the Gdanzig vote, however "lame" it may be, is one of the few rare examples of a Wikipedia policy decision that has actually worked.
• It has worked in the sense that it clears up practice and prevents multiple edit wars. For better or worse (better, actually), editors, even die hard POV warriors seem to respect it (maybe because it is sort of famous, even outside Wikipedia).
• Without the Gdanzig vote, pretty much every single article on Polish-German places, where naming is in doubt is a potential edit war magnet. This in fact is the situation that led to the vote.
• There are actually almost (except for an occasional flare up, usually involving new editors) NO edit wars or disputes on German-Polish articles where geographic naming is concerned. And this is mostly due to the existence of the Gdanzig vote (same thing is not true about articles on persons - but that's because the vote is unclear in that regard). You get rid of the Gdanzig vote, you're opening up a Pandora's box.
• On the other hand Ukrainian/Russian naming conventions or Polish/Lithuanian ones or Romanian/Hungarian ones or whatever, are still a source of perennial disputes - this suggests that the problem in these areas is actually a LACK of a specific hard guideline. The problem is not with the Gdanzig vote, but with the fact that similar policies haven't been developed for other dispute prone areas.
• It does not degrade the quality of the article in anyway - in fact it improves it - to provide additional information about the present day name of the places.

The reason I'm quite irked by this is that I was actually at the article because I noticed that there is no Wikipedia articles on the Hochbergs - a certifiably German family (though one of the more recent members volunteered for the Polish army in WWII) (and if it counts for anything, had I been around when the RM for the article was ongoing I would've voted for "Duchy of Pless" since that appears to be the name used in English sources), and a very interesting one at that. They deserve to have an article on them and I happen to have some materials (including images, like for example the image of a statue of Daisy (which I uploaded [7], but also some sources) on them and I was thinking about creating a series of relevant articles and writing it up. Now I'm not so sure I should even bother.

So how about just letting the dispute go, restoring the names per Gdanzig vote, and then we can discuss the present relevancy of the vote to naming conventions - I also happen to think that it should be updated in some respects but that's a big issue that hasn't been addressed before and it lies outside the scope of this particular provincial disagreement. Cheers. Volunteer Marek  08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of General average/New version for deletion

The article General average/New version is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General average/New version until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Pole

• She was née Plantagenet because her brother and father and other relatives used that surname. If not, then someone should correct those articles too.
• According to the list and succession of the creations of the title of Earl of Salisbury, she's the 8th Countess. I've never heard of any doubt, specially since it's such a clear and high title. If the title came through female line, from Montagu to Neville, as it did, then he was its heir. Also, in every publications such as Les Dynasties d' Europe or Alison Weir's, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 137, and Charles Mosley, editor's, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 106th edition, 2 volumes (Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 1999), volume 1, page 16 mention her brother as Earl of Warwick, a title that also fell into female lines.
• She was also 10th and 7th Baroness Montacute, two peerages that have no connection to the one of Baron Montagu of her son. On Baron Montacute, you can see how she became, after her brother, the heiress of both titles.

Konakonian (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand now: it was like the new Dukedoms of Lancaster and Norfolk. All the titles of these houses were inherited, except the Dukedoms, that had to be recreated. User:Agricolae has been untiring in removing the "surname" Platagenet from other articles, but he stated that it had become a surname only later, and later means York. Apparently, it was never a surname per se, only a nickname.

The title of Earl of Warwick should've been inherited, as the title of Earl of Salisbury, by the issue of the Kingmaker, but if they were forfeit and never restored, regranted instead despite in the heirs of the forfeited ones, then it explains it all.

It's true that eve the Royal Succession followed a Semi-Salic Law, and for that reason so would the titles. But there were cases in which they followed female line succession: the Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury did, and even the claim to the Royal succession through the Duke of Clarence was valid by primogeniture and mere male preference, and Henry VII was the heir of the Lancasters not by virtue of semi-salic succession but my male preference only; see also Baron Clinton and Baron Compton, Baron Cobham and other contemporary baronies: the first two titles went through female line, dispossessing the actual families of those names, the ones of the Earls of Northampton and the Earls of Lincoln, through male preference, and the second ones fell into female line, either through semi-salic or male preference succession.

Konakonian (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So Henry IV was the heir by taking the power from Richard II rather than being the closest male heir in male line. And the same went with Edward IV, already in dispute with Henry VI despite the existance of other legitimized Lancaster males, already dead at the time Henry VI died. And, more obviously, Henry VII.

In conclusion: despite the Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury having been granted to the son-in-law of the last holder, they become new creations because they were not succeeded nor abeyant by his daughters; the two Baronies Montacute became abeyant, never used again, but with the attainder that was put upon the Poles and later lifted, the titles were out of claim, and then back again, as they remain today.

The doubt, or certainty: was Margaret Countess of Salisbury as a "new new" title or the successor of her father? Since his father house was forfeit and her brother (who might have been Earl of Warwick just by courtesy, as it became use then) did not use the title of Earl of Salisbury and this title could not fall into abeyance nor be succeeded by a woman, then we conclude that it was a new title, like the 1st Marchioness of Pembroke.

Konakonian (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - Chihuahua (state)

You once were involved into an article naming discussion of Chihuahua State. There is now a new move request you might be interested in: Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) TopoChecker (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrections

If they were never Plantagenet, then you should correct and move the articles on George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and his issue. If he and his son were surnamed Plantagenet, then you should readd it to Margaret Pole. Apparently, according to your edits on article Earl of Salisbury, he was the first of his third creation. Since the titles were forfeit, then his daughter was the first of her creation. What was her surname, though? "of Clarence", like the "of Lancaster" and the "of York"? Konakonian (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

• Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

• WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

• Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

• Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

• Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a unilateral move of a controversial title. The thread is PMAnderson_-_another_controversial.2Fdisruptive_page_move:_Juan_Carlos_I.The discussion is about the topic Juan Carlos I of Spain. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Plantagenet is an anachronism

If it is so, as you claimed, then perhaps you should clear this out: George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and other York relatives appear with the surname Plantagenet. Were they after all the only ones who used it? Also, his daughter Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury's article had (née Plantagenet) added by me and it was removed by you. Were they all Plantagenet or no one was? If the father and brother were, then so was she. If she wasn't, then neither were they. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

• News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news

• WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

• WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

• Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I came here to ask a question about the NOR policy, but had difficulty getting your talk page to load, so I've archived nearly 600 kilobytes (2008–2010). I placed it all in Archive 9, so you can divide it up as you choose—or ask for the archive to be deleted. You're under no obligation to keep cut-and-paste archives, but as you'd started, I assumed you'd want to continue. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruption

I've seen several AN or AN/I threads about you recently, Pma, regarding disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt the policies and guidelines, I'm going to consider adding to those threads, or opening a user RfC. Please stop reverting, stop adding tags, and discuss issues on the talk pages when people object to your changes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Another effort by a POV-pushing editor to amke a content dispute into a conduct dispute; the mark of terminal bad faith. In fact, I have not reverted; I have consistently offered novel text, when supported on the substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

[copied from SV talk] Except of course for those notifications you are required to make. Your factfree endeavour to make a content dispute into a conduct dispute - while conducting a revert-war - is evidence of terminal bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted your response here to keep the discussion in one place in case we need to refer back to it, as an attempt to resolve the dispute. You've been reverting at that page since January 20, including reverting the tags you add. Please make yourself familiar with WP:3RR, which makes clear that reverting can involve different text each time.

The bottom line is that it's not for you to decide that long-standing policy is disputed. It's a widely accepted policy, and the need to rely on secondary sources is also widely accepted. Please start a wiki-wide RfC if you want to change it. But above all I'm asking that you stop the general disruption around the project, as discussed many times recently on various pages. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what specific incident you two are talking about, but I have to say the tone is all too familiar. To describe the root problem as succinctly as I could, it is that PMA sees himself all too often as The Decider. I suggest most everyone would agree that PMA should follow this advice: If there is any kind of conflict (or even potential conflict), continue with discussion on the relevant talk page, but do not take action with respect to editing the guideline, the article, or moving anything. Not paying heed to the meaning of these highlighted words is what turns PMA's content disputes into conduct disputes, every time. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

[copied from SV talk] Please stay off my talk page. Your recent post is a claim of ownership; more editors at the moment have disagreed with the poor phrasing you defend than have agreed with it - and nobody has defended the policy it would (taken literally) support. This is a dispute; and removing the tag which indicates it will be suppressio veri - as well as persistent revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As you've asked me not to post here again, this will be my last post about this. Please open a RfC if you want to change a core content policy in a way that others regard as substantive. Don't revert when there are objections, don't tag, don't insult people, just keep on discussing and asking for fresh eyes. But my point is not about that page alone. My point is that this is your modus operandi on all pages—articles, policies, and guidelines—and it seems to be causing increasing problems.

Please see the recent threads about it on AN/I: January 2011; December 2010; December 2010 again; December 2001 for a third time; September 2010; September 2010 again; September 2010 for a third time; July 2010; July 2010 again. That's just a quick glance, so I may have missed some, and it doesn't include multiple 3RR reports.

I'm asking you please to reconsider your approach, and above all not to export it to the core content policies, which a lot of people rely on, and which therefore have to be stable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

hyphens

I see you have a disruptive editing warning, but you know what? You're one of the first sane people to show up in that hellpit of absurdity in quite a while, and with cogent points; maybe it's because you make cogent points you get people accusing you of being "disruptive", just as I have been derided for allegedly "bogus claims" - things that are not claims, but are facts based in sources. Wikipedia is increasingly populated by asinine fools, my patience is wearing out....I may just put myself on ANI to explain my anger tonight; no doubt there'll be a formal complaint, but my response is I'm t he one who has a grievance - against fools, obstructionists, and downright contrarian assholes intent on defending the indefensible by any means necessary. I'm choked at what else my wiki-energy could be spent on than picking up broken things and trying to find enough people to help me get them fixed; instead i find people who insist that they're not broken and don't need fixing, and I'm in the wrong for saying they are....what a waste of fucking time; have a look at the Ckatz item on the bottom of my talkpage, where I talk about all the topics/issues that I keep on my watchlist and watch over (not "OWN", but guard from spin trolls etc) and the things I could be contributing to Wikipedia. Instead of having to get proper spelling re-introduced because it was changed by some stupid fool who doesn't know about the subjects affected, nor cares...they only care about their precious vision of typography...all style, not substance....I'd rather be working on content than trying to get format fixed all the time...and extremely aggravated that my local variety of English is being told its' wrong by people on another continent, "deciding what's best for teh colonies", apparently.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Deb (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

• News and notes: Executive Director travels; DMCA takedowns; fellowship clarifications; brief news

• In the news: Facebook hack; gender gap; What is the Wikipedia "community"?; brief news

• The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books

• WikiProject report: WikiWarriors

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Whiskey

Thanks. I rarely drink, but very occasionally a malt whiskey without ice or water is called for. Tony (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

• News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

• In the news: Wikipedia controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

• Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:See main2

Template:See main2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

eight=a fourth of a quarter

After another editor accused you of baing a mathematician, I checked out your userpage on MOS. Is a quarter of a fourth eight[8]? PPdd (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning - I'll be daring by templating a regular ;-)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

• News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news

• In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news

• Versailles: Six-month residence in the Palace of Versailles for a Wikimedian

• WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

• News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news

• In the news: Egypt and Jordan likely candidates for Wikimedia office; Sanger interview; brief news

• Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times

• WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

• Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

could you enlighten me

I just saw the phrase "stable version" in the edit summary of a page I watch. When I looked up Wikipedia:Stable versions to see what this meant, the tag at the top left me with only confusion. I've sworn off discussion on MOS, guideline, or policy pages because I have no hope of keeping a civil tongue with children who are neither children nor civil (or rather, they confuse communicating in a robotic manner with civility, which surely has a human component). Could you perhaps spare a moment to tell me where I might find out what is meant by "stable version"? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news

• In the news: "Truth in Numbers?" interview; 94% women; Google algorithm update; brief news

• Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Latimer/Latymer

You changed the spelling Latymer to Latimer in the titles of John Nevill, 3rd Baron Latimer and John Nevill, 4th Baron Latimer. This is incorrect: Baron Latymer is conventionally spelled with a y, to distinguish it from the separate, older Baron Latimer (although the titles are held by different branches of the same family). BartBassist (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem

• Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news

• Editcountitis: Report on Editcountitis. 27% of all edits have been done by just 4,000 editors

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

About some of your "reverts"

Hi Pmanderson. On some pages that I have edited regularly I see you reverting. I have not seen you using talk page to explain your concern. Would you let me know why you did:

• this 1 or this 1.1. Please see "why I think the revert was incorrect".
• this one. Please see this. Also you write "restore sourced (and well-known) assertions". Did you read the source? Nothing that I removed are sourced and the sentence that is sourced is "manipulated". Look at this: the original words of the source is "Even though there are later traditions which place him in Azerbaijan and Media, it is more reasonable to locate Zoroaster somewhere in eastern Iran along with the rest of the Avesta. Further, the two Avestan dialects belong linguistically to eastern Iran." Now look what the user has added "Even though there are later traditions which place him in Azerbaijan and Media, it is more reasonable to locate Zoroaster somewhere in eastern [ancient] Iran [today's Afghanistan] along with the rest of the Avesta. Further, the two Avestan dialects belong linguistically to eastern [ancient] Iran [today's Afghanistan]." Don't you think your revert was unjustified? Also did you see the source? Did you see this #Raŋhā = Rasā in Vedic geography, at times mentioned together with Kubhā (Kabul) and Krumu (Kurram), a river situated in a mountainous area, probably connected with the Indus, not with the Jaxartes or with the Volga". This is really OR ONLY. Not in the source, not sourced...
• and this one ...

I guess your reverts are unjustified and you should at least use the talk page to explain why you did all these sudden reverts on pages you have not previously edited (I hope I am not mistaken or otherwise sorry for that). In any case if you are going to engage in editing please let us use talk pages more often. Cheers. Xashaiar (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Please stop that

So if there is an article that has, consistently, what you call consolidated individual notes, you come along and correct some punctuation in the article, then another editor adds a requested citation, identical to the two surrounding ones but not "consolidated", you have now imperiously forbidden me to fix that? Come on.  --Lambiam 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UE Discussions

If you're still into WP:UE there are some issues on these talk pages: [9] and [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.183.207 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR

I have reported you for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pmanderson_reported_by_User:Kwamikagami_.28Result:_.29. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, hope you are well. Your name has just cropped up at ANI. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem?

I don't think we've ever run into each other on WP, that I can remember. I'm not sure if I've done anything to annoy you. I'm confused why you decided to suddenly (and in a rather brusque manner) oppose all of the bot requests that I have open at the moment. Is there a problem of which I am unaware, or is this your normal behavior? —SW— ^confess 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are demanding a bot which will act against clear policy;however, it is required that bots perform only non-controversial edits. You (as required) started a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_to_reduce_duplicate_references; when several people objected to your proposal, you responded None of these are valid reasons, in my opinion, and I believe I have refuted them all.

That's your opinion, on which you have no consensus. It's not the opinion of the people who disagree with you, none of who have retracted, and some of whom have actively continued to object. You should not be running a bot to do controversial things - and the use of bots to enforce stylistic preferences should be re-examined severely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, there are two people who have opposed, and one of them is you. And, I have refuted all of the opposition points. I have shown them to be logically invalid. Whether or not that causes the opposer to retract is immaterial. Also, the fact that this particular case is "controversial" is just your opinion, and it has only become controversial because of your disruptive influence on it. How can it be disruptive if Help:Footnotes#Multiple_citations_of_the_same_reference_or_footnote instructs us to do exactly what the bot would be doing, and it doesn't mention that it is optional or open to stylistic interpretation. —SW— ^express 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, this is two deliberate falsehoods.

• CBM, myself, and Gimmetoo have all opposed the proposal. It is difficult to believe that anybody could read the transcript without noticing both of them, who have been much more voluminous than myself. Uzma Gamal has made definite proposals for restriction, and has also been dismissed.
• As Snottywang has just finished admitting, the footnote style he prefers is neither recommended nor required; the link he quotes is instructions on how to do it, if you want to. (There are certainly articles on which it is desirable to do it; there are also articles on which it isn't.) He regards the giant step from this permission to imposing it everywhere as a mere "bureaucratic obstacle".

Please keep this editor off my talkpage while I am unable to do anything about it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You know the drill by now, so I'm not going to give you the spiel. I fully expect you to appeal it, so I only ask that any admin reviewing this please see my rationale here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this block. Having just interacted for the first time with Pmanderson a few days ago (with unsatisfactory results), and having just taken a look at his block log, it's clear that corrections to his behavior are required before he will become a productive editor. I would also second Heimstern's request that an admin considering an early unblock take a comprehensive look at the 3RR situation as well as Pmanderson's recent contributions. —SW— ^confess 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PMA has generally been a productive user since early 2005, but for whatever reason has become increasingly crabby and belligerent about what are, to most readers, minor stylistic issues, fighting a somewhat Quixotic war against the imminent stylistic demise of Wikipedia. I think it might be better if he just stayed away from MOS issues for a while.  --Lambiam 08:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is his 23rd block since 2006. Something tells me his attitude hasn't just changed recently. —SW— ^prattle 13:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Characteristic carelessness. This counts my unblocks; that they are on the same list does not make them the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For the reason Heimstern gives below, I have stayed off this talk page. However, PMAnderson is correct in stating that the number of blocks has been misstated. I count 14 prior to the current block, not 23; the remainder are indeed unblocks, mostly because he promised to stop edit warring. One of the unblocks was made with the summary "pages not clearly listed as style guidelines", suggesting that the unblocking admin considered that block to be unjustified. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, because I have promised not to engage in some particular dispute; I am willing to disengage from anything at the request of an uninvolved admin at any time - a technique that should be tried more often. I have (elsewhere on this page) offered not to add a hyphen to the article Mexican-American War for a week, if an admin thinks that helpful. (I am surprised that so many as five blocks were not reversed; I think at least one of them expired before I learned about it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes, of course I appeal. This is punitive, not preventative; as I said, before the AN3 appeal was filed, and at AN3 (Heimstern links to it), I do not intend to revert again; this block is on the basis of one edit which established a novel text and three restorations against the same revert warrior.

Decline reason:

Considering your prolonged history of edit warring, blocks, and promises not to edit war again, I agree with Heimstern Läufer's statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: we need more than the limited undertakings you have given. In fact, in view of your history, the only thing about this block that seems at all questionable is that it is so short. How many times do you edit war before you are indefinitely blocked? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That Kwamikagami chose to revert (and thus he restored what we agree are errors) rather than establish his own new text, convinced me - and convinces me - that he was acting in bad faith; for that discussion, see here. But that discussion should be conducted elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Promising that you aren't going to revert again after making your fourth revert doesn't exempt you from 3RR, nor does it make the resulting block punitive. Especially when you consider the clear pattern of behavior as evidenced by your block log. An early unblock would only encourage you to continue your disruptive behavior. —SW— ^gossip 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of 3RR blocks, like all blocks, is preventative, not punitive. Therefore, this block was unnecessary to begin with; and doubly unnecessary since I believe, and have stated in good faith, that I made one novel edit and three reversions. (In addition, the article is protected.) I am therefore done, by anybody's reckoning - and the article has changed since then anyway. If an admin wishes to make a condition that I not restore any hyphens to the article in question for a week, I would think it Quixotic, but agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

One would think that after the number of blocks you've had, you'd learn that after the first revert cycle you should just start a discussion and get a consensus. If you had learned your lesson, you wouldn't have even gotten close to 3RR. And especially over something as stupid as hyphens. You're not even edit warring over words or letters anymore, now you're edit warring over a hyphen that is 5 pixels longer than a different type of hyphen. Are you here to actually improve the project, or just to start ridiculous arguments with people? And you can't ask me to stay off your page and then start replying to things I've posted here in the past and expect me to not reply. Doesn't work that way. —SW— ^gossip 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

block is unjust

As I understand it, the basis of this one week block is PMA merely coming close to a 3RR violation, but not actually achieving it (due to not being within the 24 hour window). If true, regardless of his history, it's not reasonable to block for this, though maybe a warning is in order. And if PMA puts in writing that he won't revert again, I would believe him, simply based on my experience with him, but if that's not enough, since his reverting despite what he said would certainly be grounds to block him, why not wait and see if that occurs? I have supported long blocks for PMA in the past, but I strongly object to this particular one. It doesn't seem just at all, and I oppose injustice no matter where it is aimed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite 22 blocks, he still hasn't learned that he shouldn't edit war. What makes you think a warning will work this time? —SW— ^converse 18:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment is a personal attack, and inaccurate; half of the list he is counting are unblocks. This not only exaggerates my block record but suppresses that I have been routinely unblocked. One reason to unblock me is to permit me to defend myself against this sort of thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the heading, which states the reason is for "edit warring", and went solely by the referenced rationale, which doesn't mention edit warring, only 3RR.

For edit warring I agree the block is appropriate, and would even add that just a week is insufficient, given that repeated week-long blocks in the past have clearly not been sufficient to inhibit PMA from engaging in edit-warring again, repeatedly. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring with a single editor, who has not been blocked? I kept (I believe) exactly within the limits of 3RR, and expressed an intention to leave it there before my antagonist went to AN3. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd think someone who has already been blocked for edit warring so many times would be hesitant to take situations right to the limits of 3RR. Note that WP:3RR also says: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." —SW— ^soliloquize 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring with a single editor who has not been blocked. It only takes two to edit war, and, because of his history, he was warned, while you, because of yours, were blocked. Asking people to stop posting on your page once they clearly explain where you've gone astray probably does not help improve your reputation. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm not asking you to stop - merely the overbearing editor who wants a bot to do something which is flamingly controversial, and who takes his revenge for my opposition by falsifying my block record. We need not enter your long history of quarrelling with me - yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another obvious example of edit warring, [11] user blindly reverts my edits, ignoring my contributions without so much as a comment. I was tempted to file an ANI notice until I found that he was already blocked. These types of users need harsh punishments for their obvious lack of cooperation, when it has been proven time and time again. Let it stand and give them time to think about their actions. ΔでるたT _{^{The only constant}} 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please get User:Snottywong (posting as an underline) and his ally Delta off my talk page. It would be nice if you would then return to consider the unblock request, but that's less important to me right now. As Deacon says (my compliments) "I really dislike the apparent bullying here. PMAnderson is entitled to his opinions without those whose proposals he opposes jumping on to his talk page and kicking him while he's down." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your actions and your record speak for themselves, I doubt there's much I could do to influence the admin who will eventually handle your unblock request. In any case, this is my last post on your page for the moment, unless you decide to reengage with me in the future. Enjoy your week. —SW— ^gab 23:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with Pmanderson on the merits of the block, but I fully agree with his request that Snottywong stay off this page. It amounts to kicking him when he's down, which is unacceptable, and I'm prepared to enforce this as needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While I'm here, I should mention that I'm going to be away from the computer today, so the community should take charge as it comes to both dealing with people kicking Pmanderson and (probably more importantly) making any decisions on this block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While I'm gone, I would appreciate a decision on the unblock above. As several people have said at AN3, the 3RR is shaky; even Heimstern considered no blocks, or two. I have already said I have no intention of continuing the edit war (and have offered concrete assurances I will not) - and I cannot in any case, since the article is protected. Is this protective? If so, what is it protecting? (And if there is an answer to that question, what further assurances will be necessary.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pmanderson. I invite you to join us in the IRC help channel (#wikipedia-en-help ^connect). We are a group of editors standing by, wanting to help anyone who needs it. Since IRC is real-time communication between editors, we will be able to resolve the situation far more quickly than through talk page communication. We're waiting to help you! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 03:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've tried that. Unfortunately, I will be unable to take advantage of the channel for about twelve hours; please let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, apparently you came during the time that I was hanging lights for my school's spring production. I invite you to try again, and this time ask for me specifically. My nick is matthewrbowker. If you type it into the channel, my computer pings me. I'd be more than willing to talk. Please remember that IRC is live chat, so there may be other conversations going on at the same time. Pinging me is the best way to get my attention. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Renewed appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pmanderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In looking into this, I see there is a quarrel at Coandă-1910. Can I please go offer a constructive suggestion there, and return to editing content elsewhere? I pushed 3RR, and should not have done so; but I had resolved (see link above) not to continue with the matter before it was brought to AN3. If the unblocking admin wants, I will promise (and I have always kept such promises) not to add hyphens to Mexican-American War for a week, the issue on which the edit war was founded.

Decline reason:

You already have an appeal underway. You also do not set the conditions of unblock - indeed, stopping "for a week" is not useful; stopping completely might be beneficial. Please allow for full discussion and decision on your original unblock request - there is no "parole" in ordetr to go comment elsewhere (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You could of disscused it on the talk page. And also not adding them for 1 week? Maybe that it should be when there is consensus that you put the hyphens. ~~Awsome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Mexican-American War; little else has been discussed for the past two weeks - and there has already been consensus (as judged by a neutral admin) what the article should be called; a dissident handful is being disruptive. I have little intention of meddling further with the text at all; I want to go do other things, and thus demonstrate my good faith; but am reluctant to make open-ended promises. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the first unblock request above has been ignored, by everybody including BWilkins - which was why I made a second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

• News and notes: NPG copyright irony; Citizendium's finances; Credo accounts donated; brief news

• In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine

• Features and admins: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases

• Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. Deb (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, garlands of flowers in the streets and all that. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

• News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news

• In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news

• WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify

• Features and admins: Featured list milestone

• Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated interruptions on my talk page

Good grief! You have interrupted 4 times to complain about what another editor said about Fowler's guide? How about taking it up with the editor who made the claim, instead of beating me up? Better yet, find an article that needs fixing. Chris the speller ^yack 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear on the WT:MOS page that I do not welcome your advice. Apparently that message was missed. OK, here it is again: I do not welcome your advice. Chris the speller ^yack 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras International - naming controversy

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Requested move. -- Alarics (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Demotic speakers

The usage of this term to refer to Greeks is deemed somewhat offensive.Please note that next time it is encountered you will be reported to tha administrators' noticeboard. I would also thank you to limit your response to this page and please stay off my talk page. Thank you and have a nice day.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:lead

Please stop changing the first sentence of List of German monarchs by introducing ideas that significantly move away from the title of the article. If you don't know what you're doing please read Wikipedia:Lead#Opening_paragraph or open a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise this might be seen as vandalism. Than you. Mootros (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

hyphen in that book

Check Amazon Reader[12]. It clearly uses an endash, the hyphens it uses are way shorter. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Dears

You may want to move your comment to the new move for better visibility. And you may want to elaborate a bit, I am not sure I understand what you meant :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

High Dynamic Range Imaging

A few days ago, you moved Talk:High-dynamic-range imaging to Talk:High dynamic range imaging, but not the corresponding article. The result is that the article is at “H-D-R Imaging”, but the talk page at “HDR Imaging” (without hyphens). I was wondering if there is a rationale behind this discrepancy, or if it was just a mistake? Many thanks. — Richie 18:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an oversight to me, so I've undone the move, in the interest of having the article and talk pages under the same title. I'd suggest a WP:RM discussion to figure out which title is better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, don't suppose you could _finish_ that move, instead of leaving it half-done again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed the archives myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that was confusing. Thanks for sorting this out, guys :) — Richie 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:MOS discussion

Would you stop bringing into question the notability of the subject as it concerns what language the reliable sources concerning the subject would normally be found in? It is distracting from the discussion as to whether or not the "KABA.chan" (or any variation of "KABA"/"Kaba" separated from "Chan"/"chan" by a full stop) is allowed. I have found you obfuscate the topic way too often in discussions that I have had with you.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It is no more confusing that the (counterfactual) claim that there are no sources in English. Since there are, we should follow them. If there were not, we should be justified in asking whether the subject were notable. If there is an AfD, let me know; I expect to vote to Keep. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim that there were no sources in English. I only claimed that there were no reliable sources in English. IMDB and ANN are not reliable and as I explained, but that should not exclude the fact that reliable Japanese language sources exist to support his notability. Either way, it does not help the discussion on how we should the title the article on this individual.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 20:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your accusation against Dicklyon

PMAnderson, at Talk:Mexican-American War, in this edit, you have accused User:Dicklyon of acting in bad faith and of lying. I asked you (at the same place) to retract that accusation, but you refused in belligerent terms. I hope that you will reconsider the matter during the next 24 hours, and retract there and apologise at his talkpage. I am requesting that you do so. Noetica^Tea? 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: To reword grudgingly is not to retract. Please undertake a full reversal of your provocative personal attack against this editor who is attempting good-faith dialogue, and a genuinely conciliatory overture at his talkpage. Noetica^Tea? 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mexican-American War

It's not vandalism, so I will not revert myself. Graham87 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Count of Tyrone

Please do not destroy Count of Tyrone. It may lack inline citations, but references are provided. This looks a lot like a POV crusade, and your appeals in Talk:Count of Tyrone, Talk:Earl of Tyrone, and Talk:Gaelic nobility of Ireland leave me suspicious your sources are more limited than the article's. The main contributor, User:Princeton03, is familiar with the O'Neill family council, and I trust him. Sure it needs a lot of work but I can't just let you throw it all out like that. You're going to need to provide me with a complete citation for The Complete Peerage and much more. DinDraithou (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied (I'd Like To Maybe Revive This Discussion)

[13]

Should we do a rfc?Curb Chain (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dives, not

Do you think anyone would object if I removed the Dives from Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives (consul 30 BC)? I've not investigated this, but it's my impression that this is incorrect, based on a notion that the name would've been automatically handed down from his grandfather, Marcus Crassus the so-called triumvir who most likely didn't go by Dives himself. There's been a note on the talk page pointing this out for three years. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm unbecomingly timid about anything I do on WP these days. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, discussion requires vast amounts of time and patience, which I imagine might be better spent generating content. This is classic, and communicates more efficiently. I have a couple of articles a few editors have suggested nominating for GA status, but I don't have the emotional stamina to face, and prefer to have them hover under the radar of, the Inquisition. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"ce"

The shorthand "ce" is generally used for uncontroversial copy edits; your use of it to hide a controversial change of style that you know is hotly contested seems sneaky and dishonest. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anderson, do you recall what happened at the last AN3 report? Start a RfC or an arbitration or whatever you want. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC is a good idea. Arbitration is for user misbehavior problems; might be a good idea, too. What's an AN3? Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

Please stop edit warring at Mexican-American War. Calling following the MOS "vandalism" is especially ridiculous, and makes you look like a troll. I don't know if you're trying to provoke a fight, but regardless your behaviour is unacceptable. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim that this follows the MOS is a falsehood employed by four disruptive editors to conceal their destructive campaign. Please stay off my talk page, unless you have something substantive to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who attempt to follow the MOS, which represents some best-practices in typography among other things, are acting in good faith for the good of the project. If you keep calling us liers and vandals, you are simply violating WP:NPA instead of addressing the real issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

embattled?

Hiya PMA,

I remember having a couple of generally positive interactions with you in the past, but having just now happened upon some recent talk page comments I have to wonder: "what the hell is going on?" Are you feeling embattled for some reason, or something? I just... you're gonna get blocked soon, guy. Maybe we disagree on things, maybe we agree, whatever... just, don't get blocked for creating inter-personal issues.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia users name "superinjunction celebrities"; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

hyphen/dash position question

Hey. Would you favor using hyphens consistently for all purposes in WP article content as well titles and URL, and never using any kind of dashes? Seems to me that would be the simple, clear, consistent and credible solution. Any deviation from that is bound to lead to complexity and inconsistency. What do you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• This hyphen-only convention could also be easily enforced by a bot. Even if there is some truly special case where we really need to use a dash, like an article about dashes, the bot could have some built-in special cases to allow. There can't be very many of those. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS

I have refactored your comment to remove the rather pointed comment directed at me. I am trying to keep it impersonal. please do likewise. Thank you for your cooperation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• After I have drawn your attention to the statement of yours being considered racist, would you consider formally withdrawing that comment? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Please in the future be more sensitive to those who feel that your comments were abusive or racist. Even if you didn't intend it so, you need to spend fair effort to understand what their concern was and address it.

You have been repeatedly warned about civility issues in the past. Please spend more effort on this area going forwards.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bringing about change

Next time you're accused of being dishonest or worse for trying to bring about change at the article level instead of first establishing consensus to change MOS or a guideline or whatever, feel free to refer to this: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do you have the right thread? Honesty isn't the issue here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry - he was accused of dishonesty regarding issues that had to do with MOS, so, given the section heading, I thought it was fine, but I just created a new section. Feel free to delete this comment now that this is straightened out. Sorry about the confusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem; you said dishonesty or worse, and racism may well be worse than dishonesty. This case may be (like the underlying cause of dispute) mere lack of fluency. But when fraudulent accusations of racism are regarded as equally bad, we may yet approach Utopia; in the meantime, some people will play Chicken Little, ignoring that this actively harms those who are actually under a falling sky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• You may be interested to participate in a thread about your abovementioned actions at WP:ANI. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:MOS post

Looks like you forgot to sign? Gerardw (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Arb request

"Tony called the closing admin corrupt" -- could you rephrase that so that it clearly refers to the admin of the first closing? I was the admin for the second movereq, and didn't get any insults thrown my way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Just wanted to make sure that you see: WT:MOS#RfC: simple resolution to disagreements over dashes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

logarithm

You'll probably have noticed, but since the nomination is at a kind of stand-still now: I have addressed your historical comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Logarithm/archive1. I'd appreciate your feedback on this. Thank you, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Birds of a Feather

Look like you and I may be of like minds on the hyphen thing. Is this stuff unreal, or what? Surreal? Anyway, my area of expertise is cancer, and there are now 14 quadrillion (IMO) bogus horizontal lines of various types in perhaps 12 billion articles. WTH is going to happen with those? Another thing that blows my mind is the massive cumulative record of misconduct of one of those editors you mentioned, yet NOTHING has ever been done to this person. What do you think? Personally, these fait accompli situations - wherein one guy changes THOUSANDS of things over a few days, and then refuses to fix them, just ENRAGES me TO THE CORE! :-O

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

PMA, he's talking about Kwami putting hyphens into cancers like basal-cell carcinoma, and such. For some reasons, the medical types don't use the same English as some other fields do. I agree that you guys should flock together. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

• News and notes: More research on newbie editors; Baidu plagiarism; bin Laden coverage; brief news

• In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news

• WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games

• Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back

• Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.16.5, 1.17b1; 1.18 branched; UploadWizard the default; Berlin Hackathon; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Personalizing things too much?

Don't you think comments like this border on violating WP:NPA? Is there some reason you think that making the argument about me gives you a leg up? Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

• News and notes: Geographical distribution of Wikipedia edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news

• In the news: Education minister's speech copied from Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news

• WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute

• Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

edit warring on a naming guideline page again

Again? Really?

• [14] (reasonable bold assumption that there is no objection - no problem)
• [15] (standard WP:BRD (yes, lack of consensus support is a very weak reason to revert, but it is an indication of objection, and sufficient cause to move on to discussion on the talk page to seek further explication)
• [16] (Reverting the revert is unacceptable, especially for someone who is supposed to be trying to demonstrate good faith efforts to avoid conflicts, especially on naming guideline and policy pages.)

Is it really that difficult to follow WP:BRD? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, lack of consent is no reason to revert. "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. That's policy. Now, if either of you cares to discuss substance, that would be welcome. If not, expect to explain yourself to ANI. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policy than on other kinds of pages. Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first, and sufficient time should be allowed for thorough discussion before being implemented. Minor changes may be edited in, but are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

Once you are reverted for a policy or guideline page change, for any reason, you need to discuss, especially if you have a history of getting involved in contentious edit wars. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you [17]. I still recommend starting a discussion section about this on the talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Pmanderson,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 07:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Federated state (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Federated state (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federated state (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rennell435 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

• News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news

• In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations of vandalism in subject lines

I noticed you tagged your subject lines with bad faith and inaccurate accusations of vandalism. What do you have to say about this?Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: I raised your subject lines at WP:ANI; I want them removed.Rememberway (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

By Jove

Could you spare a moment to look at this extraordinary bit of business? I'm taking a wiki-break and only stopped by today to check in on some things, so I'm short on time and have never undone a move before. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was quick! and most welcome (I can't even do a move, let alone undo one). Hoping you're well. Haploidavey (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was so thoughtful of you. I've probably been told before, and promptly forgotten; I'll put the message where it can't be archived. Haploidavey (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Skåne Regional Council

I responded to your oppose at the talk page. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with some Wikipedia-related research?

Hi Pmanderson. My name is Sanjay, and I'm a 1st-year PhD student working on a project aimed at improving the quality of scientific articles on Wikipedia by providing easier access to relevant published refereed articles. I found you on the list of Wikipedians with access to Web of Science and JSTOR, so I figured you must frequently utilize such articles in your work on Wikipedia. If you are interested in lending your expertise and advice to this research effort, I have posted a set of questions on my talk page - I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to answer any or all of them. The answers will help inform the design of a tool which I believe will benefit the Wikipedia community. Thanks! Sanjaykairam (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

• In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Royal Railway

• Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

• Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired

• Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

• Board elections: Time to vote

• News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

• In the news: 60% of doctors use Wikipedia; growing in India; brief news

• Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

• WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

May I ask why you find it acceptable to voice an opinion about the guideline and not only find it OK to immediately act on it without even giving other the courtesy of responding first, but insist on it as if it were a result of a consensus of some sort? You are well aware that an RfC is currently underway, and most of that RfC's material does not even concern the items you perceive as problematic. I must ask you to please follow the proper discussion procedures. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 16:14 (UTC)

I've responded there as well. All in all, you don't have the prerogative to decide what violates our core policy and what doesn't; that the community's job. I've seen you usurp the right to make an ultimate decision on more than one occasion, and that really becomes worrisome. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 16:30 (UTC)

WP:RUS was up for discussion for over a month in 2007 and had universal support before being promoted to a guideline. You can't get any more "official" than that. I have not added a single word that altered the spirit of the guideline ever since, hence there can't possibly be any parts which "only I support". What I am doing is reverting to the version that has been supported as a result of a formal proposal so those who want to participate in the RfC would have the current version to work with. You, for some reason I don't understand, seem to think that I added chunks between 2007 and now. This is not the case, and this is just outrageous. Are you going to mark all guidelines which you don't like as "essays" now? If you are having a hard day, please take a break to calm down, but if this your genuine attitude, then I think a request for comment for your conduct is in order.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 16:56 (UTC)

It is true that no local consensus can make guidance against policy acceptable. It is, however, not your place to decide whether it is the case. There are only two ways in which the incompatibility of a lower level guideline with a higher-level policy can be determined—the community discussion and the ArbComm decision. As a member of the Wikipedia community, you have the same right as anyone else to identify the problems and fix them in the articles, being mindful to the fact that if your identification is challenged, you will need to initiate a discussion nevertheless. You also have the same rights as anyone else to pinpoint the incompatibilities between the individual policies and guidelines. What you do not have a right to do with the guidelines is to unilaterally act on your own judgement—especially not when the discussion between other members of the community is ongoing. That is neither right nor civil. With that in mind, please revert your changes to the pages in question and kindly let others discuss the issue in a calm environment.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 12:57 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is everybody's business. Insisting that only ArbCom or a "community decision", which you will do your best to stalemate, can remove something blatantly contrary to policy, is a recipe for idefinite delay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Chill..

I'm not sure why you're in such a big rush to deal with this WP:RUS thing.. I think Ezhiki is acting in good faith here. I also think we should let the discussion run its course, rather than fanning flames by making changes before the discussion is over. Mlm42 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at the recent discussion Ezkihi and I have been having on my talk page.. just when I thought we were getting somewhere.. Mlm42 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. He knows about Russian and English; he knows very little about Greek and English; he doesn't even know the name of Wade-Giles, the major competing system for Chinese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Villa Pump (proposals)

Hi, there has been a modification to a proposal which you have previously discussed. The discussion can be found here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman Iron Age

I've posted a question at the Classical Greece and Rome project page that could benefit from your expertise. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Julian - Caesar

http://forumancientcoins.com/Articles/Julian_II.htm

S. Tougher, "The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity", page 122

Sources which relate the position to heir-apparent. I do think this issue needs clarifying one way or the other (and the conclusion should be included in the article) as, even as just our debate highlights, it is an important distinction which has significant bearing upon an understanding of Julian's rise to power. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Plus, I think it is quite clear that whether the title Caesar was a reference to his status as co-emperor or heir-apparent, that Constantius did intend for him to inherit after the 'death' of Constantius Gallus. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright I'm willing to accept that the term would be overly controversial but some clarification for the term Caesar should be given as the link is not at all helpful, I'm willing to leave the wording to you. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice concerning you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Pmanderson's behavior. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

Edit war

You might not realize it but this edit of yours was jumping squarely in the middle of an active edit war, choosing a side. This makes you a partisan to the edit war. I strongly recommend you revert your edit and extract yourself from this edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Listen to Myrrha please

Please listen and support/oppose avec comments! [18]

TCO (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring your comments

Several of your recent comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) struck me as uncivil and bad faithed. I have always respected you in the past, but your claims that Slavic editors are biased, as "proven by ArbCom", are very disturbing. I am asking you in a friendly manner to rewrite them or strike them out. Please "discuss edits, not editors". Thank you,--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I read your arguments is that you imply that those (in particlar, Slavic) editors who disagree with you on that page are biased, and you further poison the well by bringing up an unrelated ArbCom case. This is very inconstructive, and very much in the spirit prohibited by WP:NPA. Please reconsider your arguments, I'd hate to see the matters between us, so civil and respectful for many years, escalate further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek love

Hello Pmanderson. Thank you for your interest in the Greek love article. I noticed you reverted my edits with the edit summary, "Restore version by Cynw`olfe. If this continues, dispute resolution may be necessary." I do not see a reason for dispute resolution unless it was your intention to threaten me or create an atmosphere of intimidation. If your intention is an edit war you should know I am not engaging in it now nor will I be doing so in the future. I urge you to seek a second opinion, but I do have the right to edit on a page I have been contributing to for years. While I do not share the belief that editors need to summarize everything on the talk page before they edit, I have been doing so for a reason...it's called cooperation. Someone suggested it several times and I am cooperating. No editor has the right to demand another editor stop editing or contributing to any article. It goes against the very nature and spirit of Wikipedia. If you would like to actually discuss what displeases you so much in a civil manner I would welcome the addition to consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Dear PManderson, the Manual of Style was unprotected in good faith earlier today by arbitrator Casliber, in which his stated hope was that edit-warring "will not recur". The page history shows that you leapt in to make five edits in the hours after this—some of them contentious and without warning or discussion on the talk page—with at least one uncivil edit-summary accusing another editor of "a deliberate falsehood".

Please be aware that you are approaching the circumstances in which a topic-ban is required for the protection of the project, given that the page has been locked on three occasions since January because of circumstances in which you have acted provocatively. Tony (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You might want to tone it down

PMA, you probably know that I agree with you that the MoS should be less about personal opinion than it currently is, but you're starting to sound like you're the crazy one. The level of fervor that I pick up from your contributions is what I'd expect from Headbomb when he gets going, not from someone reasonable.

You might be right, but people like Tony haven't really done anything, and Noetica hasn't done anything except be a big fat dramamonger. That's really not cause for banning anyone.

It's unlikely enough that the MoS majority is going to take someone seriously if that person is telling them that their own pet peeves don't count as reliable sources. It's even less likely if that person also comes off as raving. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously. I agree with Darkfrog24 here, PMA. The 37,000-foot view I’m seeing here is of others collegially trying to work in a collaborative writing environment in the library and you’re walking around with a boom-box objecting to something at every turn. Now you might not like that message, but try not jumping down my throat with a bunch of blue-linked righteous indignation about “AGF” and “civility” and “inclusivity”. Just take to heart that it appears that your protracted persistence seems to have numbed the senses of others to such an extent that they just accept your disruption as the price of participating on Wikipedia, as if the rule-set as of late is…

1. Is it right?
2. Is it sound technical writing practices?
3. Is it compliant with Wikipedia’s five pillars?
4. Is there a general consensus?
5. Will PMA throw a hissy fit and start leaving edit summaries in Latin? (cogito maximus impressum rif-raferus)

It would behove you to cool your jets some for a while; they’re making that *tink* - *tink* - *tink* sound of overheated metal right now. Greg L (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NCRUS - DAB populates places

You commented on WP:NCRUS. I made a minimum proposal (resulting in ", Russia" as default when disambiguation is needed, instead of parenthetical disambiguation) at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. It would simply mean to remove the "Dikson (urban-type settlement)"-rule and would result in Dikson, Russia by applying the general Wikipedia rules. Hope we can move forward step by step, bringing WikiProject Russia in line with general WP rules. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Follow the sources

Greetings! I just saw this section of the MOS, and I was surprised/pleased to see that it resembled a lot of points I've been making on the MOS:TM talk page for a while. Are we maybe at a point where there's some consensus there and a genuine guideline we can point people who espouse the "but the company formats it this way" argument? Croctotheface (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falkland Islands

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falkland Islands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)