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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 (竜龙) 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 (竜龙) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

... [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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

[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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

[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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

---

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please come to IRC. By the looks of your question, I think it would be best to have you log on to IRC. IRC stands for "Internet Relay Chat", which allows for real-time text-based communication with other users. This way, in addition to the help I can provide, I can get others on #wikipedia-en-help to help you, as well. Here is a web based IRC client, so you don't have to download anything to talk to us! We are waiting for you.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Please come to IRC. By the looks of your question, I think it would be best to have you log on to IRC. IRC stands for "Internet Relay Chat", which allows for real-time text-based communication with other users. This way, in addition to the help I can provide, I can get others on #wikipedia-en-help to help you, as well. Here is a web based IRC client, so you don't have to download anything to talk to us! We are waiting for you.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

---

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Welcome back. Deb (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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 (竜龙) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 (竜龙) 20:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

[13]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Do you have the right thread? Honesty isn't the issue here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
• You may be interested to participate in a thread about your abovementioned actions at WP:ANI. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)

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)Reply[reply]

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

TCO (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccine controversy. 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) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if I could get you to look through my article on the Mallians. I've done a lot of work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice of you to take an interest here. Don't think great(to the power of a few)-grandpa Lord Anne Douglas-Hamilton would be too fussed which surname he held, especially considering his Christian name! Douglas/Hamilton/Douglas-Hamilton? Who cares? A younger son, Lord Anne, whose progeny inherited the senior titles of both houses, and chose to call themselves Douglas-Hamilton, much as the until 1902, branch did. Being the heir male of the great House of Douglas is not something to be swept under the carpet just for the 'unfortunate' fact that the same man happens to be the head of the House of Hamilton...So what? Brendandh (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that's awfully big of you! Opinion? Importance? Genealogical treatise? Um, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia is it not? How important are you, with your opinion? Ever heard of ancestral memory, visiting the sites, hard copy in situ? No, didn't think so....Brendandh (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to take so long. Not quite two days ago something unexpected happened and I have found myself in a situation I have no dignified way out of, so I reacted by buying whiskey to go along with my beer. Before I get drunk again shortly, after which I am going to force myself to stay up and go the library instead of passing out, I will tell you a little about what I meant.

I am not locked in a battle of wits with genealogists. Rather, you could call them computer and Internet specialists, who while appearing in part genuinely good-natured have done several things to make me unhappy, including wiretapping and hacking my computer. It will sound crazy, if you are interested. I should probably tell one hundred people I can trust, mainly of the academic type, but have not told a soul yet. Who knows what will happen in the future, but I need confidence when dealing with them... assuming I can survive my other situation. I am in love with one of them too, and a lot is very delicate. Can you keep a secret? Nora lives (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! It will take me some time to think of how I need to say it so that I won't sound insane! I'll get back to you. Cheers! Nora lives (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. 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) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to understand your position, and I'd rather not clutter up the talk page with our colloquy. Isn't it always the case that an article about a category of something will be somewhat redundant with articles on types of things within the category? In this instance, wouldn't Glider, Hang glider, and Paraglider also be redundant with Fixed-wing aircraft? If so, shouldn't we delete those articles? Would you support deleting Helicopter because it's redundant with Rotary-wing aircraft? How about deleting Automobile because it's redundant with Motor vehicle? I'd appreciate some further clarification of your reasoning. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that we're arguing from different assumptions. Let me see if we can find out where we diverge. To start: do you agree that Fixed-wing aircraft=Airplane+Glider+Hang glider+Paraglider+Assorted other fixed-wing aircraft? Dohn joe (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying - when you divide "fixed-wing aircraft" into "airplanes" and "gliders" (omitting the others for brevity), you'll just have to divide "airplanes" again into "biplanes", "jets", etc., so why not just go straight from "fixed-wing aircraft" to "gliders", "biplanes", "jets", etc., and sidestep lopsidedness of categories, correct?

The problem I see with that is that "aeroplane", by itself, has encyclopedic content, separate from "fixed-wing aircraft", and separate from "gliders", and from "biplanes". To analogize, Romance languages has meaning separate from Indo-European languages on the one hand, and Albanian and Spanish on the other. Here's what I mean: "aeroplane" and "glider" are both subsets of "fixed-wing aircraft", just like "Romance languages" and "Albanian" are both subsets of "Indo-European languages". "Aeroplane" and "Romance languages" can be further divided into "biplanes". etc., and "Spanish", etc., while "glider" and "Albanian" cannot. But just because it seems lopsided when you put "aeroplane" next to "glider" - the same way it seems lopsided when you put "Romance languages" next to "Albanian" - doesn't mean that they don't carry meaning of their own. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're making the discussion at WP:Manual of Style very difficult with your constant changes and nonsense (everytime I try to post something, I have to begin anew because you've changed something around). I asked you kindly to place your comments outside the poll, to keep the poll organized and free of excessive writing, but apparently this is too much to ask. I respectfully commented against your suggestion of "Cosi Fan Tutti"; it does not apply in the issue. You're behaving like a child and your personal bias shows repeatedly. You're attempting to have an edit war as opposed to focusing on the issue at hand. All of your arguments have been answered to and made invalid, face it. Thank you. T.W. (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. Listen, my comments to you were not meant as personal attacks. I sensed some tension and was responding to it by making reference to things you've said. If you did not mean those things spitefully, then I believe you and I will not try to use them against you. This issue is very important to me and I'd like Wikipedia to have solid guidelines on the matter. I'll remove my comments not related to the main discussion, and I hope you do the same. By moving your comments I was not trying to tyrannize, I just wanted the discussion to run smoothly. T.W. (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PMA, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/endash spacing we are trying to converge on a better consensus for the part of the en dash guidelines that talk about when they should be spaced or unspaced, which is an area that you said had not a good consensus. I think we can get to something that everyone can live with, but I still haven't heard what your position would be on this minor issue. If you care, please let us know at that subpage. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That attempt has come to an impasse. I still wonder what your position would be on it, but no matter. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The invitation for your opinion should not have been taken as an invitation to just go ahead and change the MOS section to your liking. Discuss first, find consensus, then we can change it. Changes in various directions have been found to find less support than what we have now, so let's stick unless we can do better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• PMA, please also see my post Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#More disruptive editing. I didn’t chose how to name that discussion thread—Dick did—but I might have come up with something real close. I caution you to read what I wrote (00:55, 2 August 2011 post) there before you contemplate acting out on this issue again. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By the way, this proposal of Greg L's is almost exactly what I support.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

Consensus has been so hard to nut out - this and this are extremely unhelpful, as are your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/endash_spacing. If you can't edit collaboratively then you need a break. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:

There was a discussion, to which I was invited immediately above, which reached no consensus; an impasse (as above) is no consensus. I made one effort to put in a briefer text which did not rule out the normal usage, as many at the discussion supported; I made a second effort to say this had no consensus - I don't see how any admin can look at this section and see consensus on the present text; it's difficult to find anyone who agrees with it - both option b and option d are changes, in the same direction. Both edits were reverted by the same editor, using Twinkle (first reversion; second reversion) At that point, I left the page, discussing the matter at length on talk when challenged, and requesting protection. I do not intend to edit the page again; I believe I said so. Casliber is an involved admin, defending a text which he claims to be consensus, although it is in part barely a majority (as this post, by the drafter, admits. If I am unblocked, I will not touch MOS for at least a week; I did not revert the revert-warrior because I had decided not to touch lt.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Consider these two points:

• The vast majority of users have never been blocked, or only been blocked once or twice, early in their Wikipedia careers.
• Most unblock requests are replied to within a few hours at the most.

Now consider why you are the exception to both. And that is why you won't be getting unblocked early. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

I have duly considered. One could not possibly suppose that I have irritated the Cabal, for there is none; neither can one suppose that this is the old proverb of "give a dog a bad name and shoot it." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to make this clear, this is not an arbcom/AE block, is it? T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all. Casliber chose to mediate the controversy at WT:MOS, but he is acting as an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I very much hope that no admin undoes Casliber’s block. PMA has a long history of disruptive editing. Casliber laid out clear and valid reasoning to show that PMA showed no interest in civilly discussing things; quite the opposite, as Casliber demonstrated in his block reasoning. PMA’s got to learn that he must change his ways; merely pledging to stay away from the area where he went way beyond the line of disruption isn’t going to provide him with a sufficient attitude transplant. One of his last posts (And rhe other liar is heard from. My "self-declared" goal is the improvement of MOIS; if I wanted to abolish it, I would do what most Wikiepedians do and ignore it. But since Diclyon;s text is unsupported by consensus, style guides,,or usage, there will be az few who need mo other reason to approve of it) betrayed not only that he was fully prepared to type what he thought (calling a respected editor a “liar”) but his string of typos betrayed that he staying up too late or getting himself too wrapped up in the wikidrama. For a variety of reasons, Casliber’s block needs to be respected. Greg L (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does show I was typing hastily - but all that means is that it was mealtime. Casliber is an involved admin; Greg L is an involved editor; both would prefer to pretend that opposition does not exist.

Nevertheless, this proposal shows definite hope; we will see whether not "pretending that it is wise to try to change the writing habits of experienced, knowledgeable contributors who actually own and abide by respected manuals of style" has any traction.

I expect it to be ignored for a week, since MOS has consistently pretended to change everybody's writing habits - which is why it could use improvement; so as not to interfere with the experiment, I will not endorse it elsewhere until the week is over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, PMA. I do not pretend that opposition does not exist. And, yes, I am involved. But that doesn’t blind me to what is going on in venues you frequent. This is entirely about how one properly interacts with others in a collaborative writing environment, where disagreements always arise. You can’t continue to have influence on matters wildly beyond nose-count by relying upon tactics that worked in the past. If you can’t *feel* and intuit conduct-expected for a collegial environment, then you should take advantage of your wikibreak to study others’ posts and try to mimic the raw mechanics of proper interaction with others. Greg L (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, he tries to use against me the fact that I acknowledge the opposition, and against you the claim that you don't. I have most recently put here a summary of the few who have opposed the usage that he is picking on, with a link to where someone else can count the voters, too, and asked to be corrected if I missed anyone. It's not many, and the other many opposer, JeffConrad, agreed with restoring Noetica's version, even though he doesn't like it. PMA prefers to disrupt instead. After all the trouble he has provoked all year, a week off is nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not an involved admin, my role in the process was administrative after the arbitration committee passed a motion directing the community to establish guidelines over a period of two months. My role was secondary to that to see that it reached a conclusion. I have not expressed an opinion about what I think the consensus should be. The block was for attempting to directly undermine and weaken the conclusion reached. The length of the block was because of the violation of the explicit warning, and delicacy of the situation and the time donated by many editors to date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am pe4rfectly willing to take a week off from MOS; what I ask is to be permitted to edit elsewhere. Casliber's claims amount to taking a (feather-slim) majority as consensus; but that is best discussed in another place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here you go again, twisting language. You need to stop interpreting language to suit your world view. This is part of teh problem, especially when you act disruptively based on your interpretations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that should demonstrate Casliber's emotional involvement; those who see emotion in typoes will observe his. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PMA, if I may... I'm not involved in this particular fiasco (dashes) but I'm curious about something. As you know, I get into conflicts quite often too. I know I don't try to do it on purpose, and I presume you don't either. But I do see one key difference, as exemplified by the difference between what happened here with you, and what happened with me on WP:AT yesterday. You can never know for sure, but I, like you, usually don't bother with starting a talk page discussion if it's a minor change of clarity. So, in my case, I made some minor clarifying edits, and was reverted with the typically obnoxious "discuss first" remark (or something to that effect). But here's the difference, I abided by BRD... I didn't revert the revert, or make another similar change, even though no reason for the revert was given, because BRD recommends, but does not require, the reverter to provide a reason, especially on policy/guideline pages. I started a discussion. But in your case you didn't abide with BRD... you went with BRR (okay, not exactly a 2nd revert but close) and that of course lead to this. So... why not BRD? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Born2cycle can't see the difference between two entirely different edits on the same subject, I don't suppose anybody else can be expected to.

When dealing with a revert-warrior, it has usually been a sound practice to make several different edits on the same subject; sometimes one of them will satisfy his objection, often surprisingly; if not, the record of exact reversions will be helpful later.

So I made two edits:

• One of them was a substantive proposal, which followed several of the suggestions in the conversation described above as an impasse.
• The other was a simple statement that the conversation had not reached consensus, which seemed a reasonable, even non-controversial, assertion, when even the revert-warrior had described it as an impasse.

When, to my surprise, this second edit was reverted, I did take it to talk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're talking about these two edits, right? [19] [20]

The first edit was reverted with the comment, "Please respect the consensus process like the rest of us have been trying to do; discuss first. " [21]

I see the difference between the two edits, but my question is why there was any second edit to that same section at all, instead of going directly to discussion per BRD? Ignoring BRD like that, especially after that remark, is what gets everyone's ire going, and results in blocks for you. Or so it seems to me.

Your second edit followed that revert. Changing "...except for times and dates (or similar cases) when ..." to "...there is no consensus on times and dates, such as ..." seems like a relatively significant change to me. But again, significant or not, it was an edit of the same section about which you were just asked to "discuss first". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PMA: In response to this suggestion: Now consider why you are the exception to both, you responded I have duly considered. One could not possibly suppose that I have irritated the Cabal. Well… you finally hit the nail right on the head. Except that what you dismiss as a “cabal” is also known as “the group of editors comprising the consensus view”. So you might have instead written One could not possibly suppose that I have irritated the the group of editors comprising the consensus view. All editors are supposed to find and abide by consensus; that principal is one of Wikipedia’s Five pillars. After your block expires, it seems there are two paths you will elect to head down:

1. Continue to falsely think that the details of the dispute are all that matters (with statements from you like Casliber's claims amount to taking a (feather-slim) majority as consensus) because you feel you have Might and Truth On Your Side and Are On A Righteous Mission To Protect All That is Good and Holy In Writing Traditions, or…
2. Finally figure out that despite the above sense, it doesn’t matter if you just go and piss off a bunch of other people who are collegially trying to engage in a hobby and actually enjoy that hobby as they go about building an encyclopedia.

If you can’t make the leap to #2 and abide by it, and instead continue to view your participation on the project as just a matter of “Get my way on MOS and MOSNUM and crush a silly and sorely mistaken cabal that opposes me,” then you are just setting yourself up for still more disappointment and frustration. Greg L (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I must choose whom to frustrate, I prefer to stand with those who are actually writing the encyclopedia, in English, to those whose hobby consists of making up rules by which to reinvent the English language. I have nothing against their fun, as long as it is kept away from those who are trying to do something useful.

The "consensus view" quoted above is shown by !votes of 15-14, and the admins who accept such majorities as consensus. Yes, that consensus is against me (but not even all 15 of it). It wants me blocked because it has no case it can present without embarassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question: Pmanderson, do you think it is possible to ever disagree with you? Or is that an impossibility? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is perfectly possible to disagree with me. If disagreement is supported by reliable sources, actual policy, or consensus as we define it (that is to say, general acceptance), I will yield, and always have; if supported by argument, it depends on the strength of the argument. Ask those who have provided such. Those who have presented nothing save their opinion find that I value it for every electron it is worth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, let's discuss whether that is true some other time. What I tried to ask is not if it is possible for you to change your mind, but if it is possible to disagree with you. When you yield and change your mind based on arguments, you end up agreeing. The question hence is if it is possible to disagree with you; ie if it is possible to have another standpoint than the one you see as correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I got no answer to that. The question has a reason, and that reason is that you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you. They are according to you either liars (ie, they know that they are wrong), vandals (have no interest in truth) or don't understand/write proper English or are in other ways illiterate (ie they do not understand what they are talking about). To me it seems that you don't even want to consider that other peoples opinions may be valid. This is also played out in that you generally are not engaging in constructive consensus-building. You revert-war and you explain on talk page why you don't have to listen to others. None of that is constructive.

In short: You would not be blocked now, or any other time, if you just listened to those that disagree with you and took their position seriously. The fact that you 99% of the time is correct may have something to do with this, as you then tend to assume you are right always. But that means that the few times where you are incorrect, the result is edit wars and personal attacks, and finally blocks. I think you can change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not assume I am right always. I accept correction, as I have said, from the informed, the literate, and the intellectually honest. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a attraction for those who are none of the above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No you don't, Pmanderson. You claim that people who do not agree with you are misinformed, illiterate and dishonest. Your position on the topic is what determines your opinion of these people, not the other way around. You should probably sit down and have a deep look inside yourself and on your behavior if you wish to avoid being blocked in the future. But then again I suspect you enjoy the conflict... :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PMA, how often can correctness be seen with such clarity on typical WP issues like the ndash issue that anyone's confidence in their view being correct can rise to the level of certitude? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what everyone is really trying to say here is that no matter how correct you believe your position to be, it is important to be able to recognize when you have lost an argument. As you know, Wikipedia works by consensus. It is possible that consensus will favor a position that you regard as wrong. When that occurs it is much better to admit to yourself that despite the correctness of your position it is not supported by the wider community than to perpetuate the dispute through tendentious editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallelujah! What Beeblebrox said. It’s no more complex than that. Greg L (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But this is what am I asling for: the power to walk away, and do something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had that power all along, and you didn't exercise it. When your block expires you will still have it. Whether you use it or not will, as it always has been, be up to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(PMAnderson, I thought you might like someone to drop in and say you're a great contributor. I don't know what any of this is about, but you're fucking fierce. You're gonna love what I have to tell you one of these days (whatever it is), when I figure out more of what the fucking is going on with my own situation.) Nora lives (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: [22], please explain what confusion there is by calling Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan a Palestinian-Jewish mathematician. I do not see a difference between Abu Al-walid Marwan ibn Janah being called a Spanish rabbi and Meyer Löw Schomberg a German-Jewish physician? Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you have not replied to my response, I take it you concede that you acknowledge assumptions on the matter were unfounded? Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Pmanderson. You have new messages at GTBacchus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

PMA. I was considering leaving a post on the talk page of admin GTBacchus suggesting you go take a good long wikibreak. But your incivility is totally out of hand and your disruption to the project and the toll you take on others as they try to contribute to the project outweighs, in my opinion, the value you bring to the project at this time. I don’t know what has gotten into you, but your behavior reminds me of “suicide by cop”, where you are just asking for it. You are subject to an ANI, here. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FWIW, my advice, in response to what you (Pmanderson) said at my talk page, is here. I hope you will consider it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pmanderson, hi.

I thought I'd move here from the thread on my talk page, because I want to jettison most of that and bring up a topic in a more focused way. I'm trying to understand your views regarding this issue because you obviously see something I don't, and I'd like to see it. Maybe you'll help me get better at what I do here.

Is it your position that sources such as newspapers and online dictionaries should carry more weight in titling decisions than sources such as print dictionaries, books on the subject, and standard references in the field in question?

If that's not what's a stake, then I guess I still don't understand your position, or exactly what your critique of my close is. Sorry if I'm being dense. I see that the timing and the rationale can both be questioned. In this post, I'm referring to the rationale, that we've been discussing. Timing is a separate issue, at least from my end, and I'm happy to address that separately.

So, yeah. What's up? General sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My position is that the greatest weight should be given to the usage of other works of general reference. To choose an example away from cookery, it is quite true that a biography of Gustavus Adolphus is called Gustaf Adolf the Great, a claque of the Swedish; den Store, IIRC. But the normal English is shown not by this, but by the encyclopedias and general histories in English which normally call him Gustavus Adolphus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd still like to reply to this, but I don't have time right now. This issue is an important one, and I don't want it to be lost in the noise of everything else that's going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]