This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your excellent VisualEditor contributions, and the endless stream of fascinating and finnicky bugs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Atethnekos. You have new messages at WP:RDH#Name of an island.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am really impressed with the level of professionalism and depth of knowledge you have shown on the Gospel of Matthew and some of the noticeboards recently. I would very much appreciate it if you would review the Gospel of the Ebionites article after this ongoing conduct issue is resolved. I tried to bring the article up to a high level of quality to create an editing environment where scholars rush in but Randy fears to tread, rather than the opposite case which is typical of this sub-category. I hope you will consider being part of a small informal group of editors that will look after and further improve the article. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, but I can't claim any level of professionalism or great depth of knowledge. I do have access to sources though, and I try my best to stick to those. (I fear at times I may be one of Randy's enablers.) I'm watching the article and will be glad to chime in when I can. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! (August 19, 2013)

• You might want to go back through and replace all of your template calls with ((subst:upgradestiki)) so that people can respond on their talk page and won't edit the template. Just an idea, and I would be happy to fire up AWB and do that for you tomorrow upon request. :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about redoing it; but I don't think it is a good idea, because then all these people get another notification for something they have already seen. The template is fully protected now, so only admins could actually make the mistaken edit, and the template does say to go to Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors in order to respond. If you think it would be a good idea though, you are of course free to do it. If you or others convince me to go back despite the double notification thing, I would gladly do so as well. Maybe I'll apply for AWB abilities. I've definitely learned my lesson though. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I see that Mr. Stradivarius has already set AnomieBOT loose on subst: these. :) If you have 500 non-bot mainspace edits, you probably qualify for AWB permissions and you can apply. Technical 13 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Teamwork Barnstar

I just wanted to thank you for organizing the community notification of the forced WP:STiki software upgrade. It's never fun when the WMF forces a change on us from above without notification, but I feel like we've reacted as quickly as possible -- and your initiative and efforts were/are/will be helpful in keeping anti-damage efforts rolling forward. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Atethnekos! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not entirely against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." As a rule of practice, one should cite only reliable "Secondary Sources." However, "Primary Sources" can still be used occasionally. According to WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here makes it clear that it is still permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament.

— Duling, p. 302

I beg to differ for the following reasons:

1. - Papias' opinion about the authorship of the original Matthew and, subsequently, later translations of the Aramaic text, is not bound by what modern scholars think or do not think about the canonical Gospel's authorship. The two are not necessarily connected.
2. - As for "specialists in language" who examined the canonical text of the Gospel of Matthew, their findings may have indeed been true about the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the Greek Evangelion). A Greek speaker may have transcribed it and may have been familiar with proper Greek usages and idioms in light of the Aramaic text. This, too, has no real bearing on the original book of Matthew which Papias spoke about. As a professional translator, I have often translated Hebrew idioms into a colloquial English that could be understood by the reader, rather than translate idioms verbatim, and which would be senseless to the reader. It is not inconceivable to think that the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew did the same thing (IMHO).
3. - As for the "Synoptic Problem," and the author's acquaintance with at least the Gospel of Mark and/or the Gospel of Luke, this problem can only be ascribed to the author who spoke Greek and who transcribed the book from his available sources - be they Greek, Latin or Aramaic sources. Again, the author of the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew cannot be linked to this "Synoptic Problem," since the Synoptic Problem is only concerned with the relationship between the Greek Gospels themselves, and no more.Davidbena (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I shall make a broader announcement soon, but I am creating an FAQ on my userspace to assist discussion concerning intelligent design: [1]. Do you have any suggestions while I am drafting? Please feel free to post them on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your feedback. I want you to know it's appreciated, although I am not sure I will be able to address everything today, rest assured it will eventually find its way to Bugzilla sooner or later. Have a nice day, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

could you please revert back to Phospheros last version on Cain Velasquez.108.34.218.189 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 108.34.218.189 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Atethnekos. A user who once held the now blocked account User:Fête has been asking questions on the entertainment desk recently. Both you and I have answered questions about the pitch at which Chinese pop songs found on YouTube have been recorded. There's a new question there now. Before being blocked, he asked a multitude of questions at the language desk about details in Quebecois French pronunciation. I reported his reappearance at the reference desk talk page, see Wikipedia_talk:RD#User:Fête is back. He has a habit of re-asking questions at the talk pages of previous respondents. The reason he was blocked, was "cross-wiki disruption: mainly inserting false informations and harassing other contributors." In the entry at the refdesk talk page, I've posted a long list of recent contributions by Fête editing as an IP, so you can have a look and judge for yourself whether you want to answer the question. I've chosen to not report Fête's activity for administrator intervention, because it appears to be done in good faith, or at least I haven't seen any obvious vandalism. However, I've also chosen to not answer his questions, mainly because he doesn't reply to questions for clarification or offers to explain how to find out the answer to a question himself. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why in first place you put tag to delete this and why it has been removed. Marina Shifrin continue to attract attention because of her video. A simple google search return many links and almost all major news networks have done a piece on her. Why can not wikipedia has article on her. Secondly, I put a response which you never replied. Thanks. --Spasage (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I have now responded on your talk page. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association of Ancient Historians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you re-added the (rather trivial, I think) factoid that this journal was originally established at Harvard, whatever that may mean. The publisher is nowhere near Harvard, although that may have been different in the past. Was this journal ever know as "American Journal of Ancient History(Harvard)" or something like that? If it's only a change in mailing address of the editor, this would really not be worth while mentioning. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It was originally both located (what we might call an "institutional home") and indeed published at Harvard University (or at least in Cambridge). "Home" and publishing location are not always the same. For example, Mind's home is the University of York, but it's published at Oxford. I do not believe the editor has to be located at the home, especially not anymore with email and cloud storage and all that fancy stuff. I think the reason it helps to mention that it was originally at Harvard is because both the old issues list the location as Harvard and citations may list Harvard, so keeping a record of that here helps anyone trying to understand that the old issues are indeed part of this journal. Also, it could be recorded just for the record—it is part of the history of the journal after all.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand that: "old issues list the location as Harvard", how exactly? As mailing address? (I have no access to print issues). "citations may list Harvard": how? As far as I know, citations always just mention a journal's name, except in some rare cases where there are several journals with the same name. You're absolutely right, of course, that "home" doesn't mean much anymore nowadays. So, why is Mind's "institutional home" at York University? The affiliation of the editor-in-chief is already given just below that, is that not enough? --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So let's take a real example of a book with a citation to it: Sheldon, Rose Mary, Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome (Routledge, 2005). On page 91 there is a reference to AJAH 9, 2 (1984). Now a reader may wonder "What does AJAH mean?" So she may go to the page xxiii at the Abbreviation list, there she will find listed "AJAH American Journal of Ancient History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press". Say the reader typed "American Journal of Ancient History" into Wikipedia just to find something about this journal. If she doesn't see "Harvard University" on the page, I think it would perfectly reasonable to wonder: "Hmmm, did the journal change publisher, is Wikipedia wrong, or is the citation wrong?" What I'm saying is, if we include that it used to be at Harvard University (and that's just what the source I have says) then this goes a good way to answering any such questions. And looking at it from the other way, even if everyone who reads the article and sees the Harvard mention and thinks to themselves, "Yes, I already knew that", they aren't going to be upset by it. So there's a reasonably potential upside, with no reasonably potential downside to inclusion of publication/location history. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• That clarifies things, I now see where you're coming from. But there is one (pedantic) remark I'd like to make: Harvard University Press is not the same thing as Harvard University. As we probably don't have a source on exactly when the change in publishers took place, I propose that we change "It was established in 1976 at Harvard University and is published by Gorgias Press" into "It was established in 1976 by Harvard University Press and is currently published by Gorgias Press". What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The CV source I had just said it was started at Harvard University. I'm not claiming it was actually published by Harvard University Press strictly. There are still things that may be cited as published by "Harvard University", but not the Press; whether that is always sloppiness from the author or always represents a real difference, or sometimes one and sometimes the other, I'm not sure. Although I knew that the Press is a distinct part of the University (although not separate) in recent years, I didn't know that in 1976 the Harvard University Press was a distinct part of Harvard University (I looked it up on the website now, and apparently it did become distinct in 1913, but I didn't know that). For example this listing from Google Books [2] for 3 volumes of AJAH just lists the publisher as "Harvard University". Anyway, if you feel confident with the ascriptions, I don't see any problem with your suggestion.

I think the journal was started by Badian, but I don't have a source for that. If I had the source I would say "The journal was established by Ernst Badian at Harvard University, and was first published by the Harvard University Press." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of On the Pathos of Truth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hekerui (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

((moved here from stray location above; created heading --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)))

I put my edit on the talk page for days but no response. The you go and unilaterally revert it even without discussion. What's a matter with you! This is why I stopped contributing 2 years ago. You guys act like some kind of god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudmichael (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Cloudmichael:. I'm sorry. It looks like your edit request was missed because it was placed in the wrong location and there was no indication that it was an edit request ([3]). Take a look at how the other other edit requests were phrased at Talk:Canterbury University (Seychelles).

Anyway, the problem with your edit is that the material that is sourced at all in it, is solely sourced to a blog that has a single post with no clear indication as to who the author is. The other material (for example, about Galois) is not sourced at all, and it is simply off-topic. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Cloudmichael (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1) I don't see how one website is of more value than another. You accept one while reject another. 2) I don't believe it is off topic. My points are first that an honorary doctorate conferred does not imply the recipient (Weierstrass) is less fit in the subject matter than a recipient from the standard educational process; and second (as shown in the instance of Galois) that the standard educational process is not necessarily a good measure of a person's fitness in a particular subject. The combination of these points should note that even if an institution is not accredited nationally or by a nationally recognized accrediting body a degree recipient is not necessarily less fit than one who obtained a degree from a nationally accredited or nationally recognized accrediting body. This is not necessarily a point to be ommited from a discussion the topic brought up within the body of this article.

@Cloudmichael:, I think you make some good points. WEll some websites are reliable sources (see: WP:RS), this usually means they authored by experts, but it's complex. Some websites are not reliable sources, for example because the identity of the author is unclear, and the identity of who put the website up is unclear. I think this is the case with the website you cited. It is hosted by blogspot or wordpress (I can't remember), which is a general blog hosting service which host pretty much anything that's legal, whether it is true or false or well-research or baseless. The author of the material is unclear, and who runs the blog is unclear. So there's simply no way to say that it is a reliable source, because the credentials of the relevant people are unknown.

The reason they are off-topic is because they aren't cited to any source which is discussing Canterbury University (Seychelles). This is known as original synthesis (see WP:SYN. Although it's true that Galois was as such, there is no reliable source given which discusses Galois with respect to Canterbury University (Seychelles). The article is for discussing just what the reliable sources discuss, not for making our own arguments. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You have removed my PROD from Parable of the Invisible Gardener which is fair enough; but I think it is unfair of you to describe the PROD as spurious. It is nothing of the sort.

We may disagree about the issue, and that is fine, but I think you should not judge the motive of those you disagree with. By way of explanation, I described it as nonsense because, by its own definition, it is one man's "tale". Since when has a "tale" been noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia? I called in unverified and unsourced because the references given at the foot of the article are not linked to any particular claim made in the article itself.

As I say, we disagree; and that's fine. I've no objection to you removing the prod, but I do not beleive you have any grounds to call my actions spurious. Psalm 122 6 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Psalm 122 6:: Hi Psalm, when I said the PROD seemed spurious, I was doing nothing except announcing my disagreement. It was not meant in any way to judge any motive. I only meant that the grounds for the PROD were false, which is my disagreement.

Anyway, I think many tales are notable enough for inclusion. Allegory of the Cave would be the example that comes to my mind immediately. I would encourage you to search even just Google Books for "Parable of the Invisible Gardener" and there are many excellent sources which discuss it, from [4] to [5] to [6]. I can offer more argumentation for you too, if you want. Anyway, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

On 22 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On the Pathos of Truth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Friedrich Nietzsche, author of The Antichrist, gave a set of essays including On the Pathos of Truth as a Christmas gift to the daughter of Franz Liszt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/On the Pathos of Truth. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's now featured (for a while) on Portal:Germany. If you have other DYK related to Germany, please feel free to place it there yourself. - Cosima Wagner might have been more attractive than "Liszt's daughter" ;) - 24 December was her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem uncouth when it looked at from some angles. I never meant any disrespect to Cosima. I just meant to make the DYK seem intriguing (a reader may ask: "Who was Liszt's daughter, and what was her relationship with Nietzsche?" And then by going to the article they would find out it was Cosima Wagner and, by clicking more, that it was through Richard that they had a relationship.) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

gift on ideas
Thank you for quality articles on philosphy and its people, such as On Ideas and On the Pathos of Truth, for fighting for verifiability and "Dialogue should be conducted with freedom, but decisions should be constrained by reason", for adding a bird, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Representative democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is that elected officials are not required to fulfill promises made before their election.((cn|date=October 2013|reason=who makes this criticism?))

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your take on paid editing is, by far, the best I've read so far. Bravo. It is a fruitless discussion, because as you can see there is resistance, fierce resistance, from well-established contributors. As I've said on several occasions, the community as a whole is completely clueless on this subject, even excluding the paid-editing community, and my suggestions that COI must be disclosed within the body of an article has been met with derision. Given the difficulties involved, and Jimbo Wales' occasional and not always consistent efforts in this regard, my feeling is that paid editing must be dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation, perhaps as a core principle within the terms of service, or nothing will happen to address this problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What he/she said. Writegeist (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, excellent description of the problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind words. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Vanada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why you've made this edit and this edit. There is no consensus to tag articles simply because someone affiliated with them has edited them especially when there are no problems with the article. I'd like you to revert your edit before I take this issue to ANI.--v/r - TP 03:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to make the reversions yourself. Wouldn't an 3O or an RFC be more appropriate before ANI? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What would be more appropriate is that you not retaliate against an editor for defending paid editing where there is no policy against it. Revert yourself. It violates the MOS. The only templates we place on top of pages are maintenance templates. There is a COI maintenance template already and it's role is to encourage editors to perform a check for neutrality. If the article already is NPOV, the COI tag gets removed. As METC and Dennis Lo have both been reviewed by independent editors who were aware of my COI, that template is grossly inappropriate and a clear retaliation.--v/r - TP 03:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no retaliation at all. If I give that appearance, I apologize wholly. The reason I have included the tags was so that there are disclosures of conflict of interest to readers. A disclosure at a talk page is nice, but the most important purpose of a disclosure is so that the reader of the article knows about the conflict of interest. Most readers will never see a disclosure which is not on the article itself. This is the same reason that serious academic journals include disclosures of conflict of interest with articles, and not apart from them.

I do not believe it violates the MOS. Although the MOS does discourage the use of message boxes in many cases, it does allow them when they supply information pertinent to readers. I believe the information is pertinent for readers. There is no general, site-wide disclaimer for conflicts of interest which make these disclaimers redundant. Do you think an RFC is the appropriate course of action? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

An RFC is the least of several things that you should do. I don't see consensus developing in favor of this either. However, to start you need to first determine if there are POV issues before you decide to tag an article. We don't tag articles because they don't actually violate policy. Don't let Jimbo's support for your ideas on paid editing go to your head - this is still a project developed on community consensus. And going after the only editor willing to disclose paid editing sets a pretty good message that you can't have been ignorant of. You've essentially said that an article is bad for no policy based reasoning nor content reasoning, but because of who has touched it. You're actions are going to lead people to not disclose a COI so they can avoid the dirty tag which is going to cause you not to be able to track it and check for actual problems with the article. I don't get how this is not patently obvious to you or anyone. Would you rather slap the honest folks with a tag that means absolutely nothing about the content of an article or do you want to be able to know which articles need the content checked? You can't have them both. I'm drafting the ANI thread now. You have about 10 minutes until I'm done compiling the evidence. You know, that stuff that I have which proves misbehavior on your part but that you've slapped me with a tag without having any to prove there is a problem? Yeah, that stuff. You need an RFC that demonstrates the community thinks this is a problem first. There are four such RFCs open right now (available in links to the right of that page) and none of them seem to have a consensus yet. Then you need a RFC on actually tagging these articles and for what purpose. Do you tag 37th Training Wing because I've touched it? What are the other editors who have contributed substantially on it going to say? Then after that, you need to take an objective look at the content of an article to determine if there is a problem. Then you tag it, not before all of that. Please revert yourself immediately. I'm not going to dare revert those and give you or anyone else fodder to throw at me and COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean for anything to go to my head. To be honest, I don't think Jimbo agreed with me all that much, although he was quite nice about it. When I first added the tag [7], I said that—and as I believe in these cases as well—I was being bold. If the next step in the cycle is a revert, or if we've already gone to the discuss phase, that's fine with me. I've never intended my actions to send any message, including any of which I can't have been ignorant. I think the tag is a good inclusion. I think the worry about the consequences of announcing disclosures in such a way in terms of preventing disclosures in the future is a real one, and maybe even patently obvious. However, I would follow the academic publishers on this one still. They too require an announced disclosure, but the threat of such consequences is there for them as well.

I don't mean at all to say—"essentially" or otherwise—that an article is bad for no policy- or content-based reasoning. My goal here is to include effective disclosure for readers, in line with good academic practice.

I promise not to receive, take, use, or throw unjustly any such fodder ever, so please feel free to revert if you feel the tags do not belong. I personally, with all due and much respect, don't agree with you on the point, and I am not convinced by your reasons given thus far for excluding the tags. But I'm sure one of us could be convinced either way with a discussion, and I would go along with any consensus regardless. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if I could take your invitation to revert on good faith, the opportunity for other editors to use such a revert against me exists. I've asked you to remove these three times now and you haven't so I've opened a thread at ANI.--v/r - TP 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)