User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Doug's back
I've already reverted Boccaccio-inspired additions to Sappho & reverted somewhat more boldly at Ascent of Mont Ventoux. I wonder if you might be able to have a look at Liber sine nomine to see if any of the plagiarism you identified before (i.e. from Zacour) has been reintroduced. But he's been busy, so this is the tip of the iceberg. Wareh 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a quick look through everything and started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. As usual with Doug, please do not take the fact that I let any of his work stand as suggesting that it does not harm the quality of the encyclopedia. Wareh 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding the time to help with this. The additional user account used entirely for sandboxes gives some insight into Doug's absence and sudden reemergence with this flood of new material. My AfD is getting a cool reception, but at least some good editors will discover from it some articles that need major reconstruction. Wareh (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Jesus (name) disruption again
Hi - I noticed that an user you've blocked earlier for disruptive edits on this page is back.
It looks as if the same user is editing information about himself, I have quarreled with him before about this, so I'd not like to interfere with his other pursuits. Thought you might like to know. --Alvestrand 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Got tired of watching his haranguing on Talk:Jesus, so I blocked him for 2 weeks. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sock block question
Akhilleus, there's a question about somebody you blocked back in June. See [1]. Would you consider doing a 1 sec block on that account to mention that the original block was flawed? The user says she has been catching flack ever since. I take no position on the merits and am only expressing a desire to end the controversy once and for all. - Jehochman Talk 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Serena (porn star)
Is it possible to conclude the dispute on the page [2]. It has been initiated 6 months ago, and has probably already reached its maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loner1979 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Persecution of early Christians by the Jews
I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Doctorates
Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including bieng members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very greateful ifo you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.
Yours sincerely
--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Akhilleus, you deleted this article. By any chance could you email me a copy of it or userfy it to my userspace? I would like to use it for class purposes. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
you might want to consider
Addition of articles
Why don't you add new articles to the "Definition" page of the Waterboarding article? There is a numbering system there. Editors have been adding articles in several other places, but I believe the "Definitions" page is the most logical place to put them. Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the page I linked just a few lines above. It has a count of sources, which seems important, and was created for this purpose. Badagnani (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a good summary of Witzel
Well, yes. The only alternative is to point out that Witzel accuses Frawley of being, in order, "amateurish, naive", having "a simplistic approach", not "getting his history right", and "obvious misinformation", concluding with: "just as his philological expertise, Frawley's historical acumen is seriously lacking" and "his use of "material evidence" suffers from the same type of shortcomings, notably, a lack of scientific background reading and from misreporting." Really, I have no idea how to put all that on te page. Relata refero (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Note
Your remarks on the lead are beginning to sound like mine. My intent could be summarize here. []It is not to create a promotional piece but a NPOV encyclopedic piece. I would be seconding your suggestion. MoS is not applied well. Many of my admonishions are based on that. My view on Pseudo are well summarized here.[4] I'm afraid I am misunderstood. I am not a true believer. Anthon01 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have at least 3-4 sets of diffs that lead to, by my own initiation, consensus improvements to the article. My comments are often unpopular but in the end I am proven to be right or mostly right. Here is one example.[5] I get accused of being a true believer but its not true. The accuracy of the articles is important don't you think? Anthon01 (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, in my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. Cheers. WP:PSCI Anthon01 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
ANI thread (blocks by JzG)
You commented on this earlier. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
ANI suggestion
You had made a very valauble suggestion in ANI regarding India/Pakistan related editors. Here is a possible [solution]. It takes time and Admins who are willing to truly be neutral and a stickler rules for it to work. We had at least 5 of them who made it happen. Taprobanus (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
SF Weekly
Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't had ti me to do much more than skim the first page, but so far it has all the earmarks of a hatchet-job, aimed at Griot while pretending higher motivations, on behalf of the pesty sister of the reporter -- the only surprise for me, really, is that the reporter admitted the relationship upfront.
I'll read it in full later, and I suspect I'll be drafting a response to the journalist's editor filling him/her in on things. --Calton | Talk 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please
- Hello could you see to this.::User Arditbido tried to change pageChaonians by using original research and his own interpretations of it.Then User:DragonflySixtyseven tried to remedy the situation that had escalated to an edit war with me and Ardibito by remaking the page but now its full of even more original research and the dozens of secondary sources are ignored with no reason and are on the talk page[6].I want the page restored to its original secondary sourced statenormal state.The talk page is full of secondary sources but they are being ignored and the page now looks very bad to say the least.Megistias (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Article recovery
Could you please move the deleted Carrom Dron Award to User:SMcCandlish/Carrom Dron Award? The material in it, while certainly not notable enough for an article, might make a good short section at Carrom. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you?
- Could you contribute with your opinion here? talk chaonians.ThankouMegistias (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
hey
Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, (based on the New York Times for goodness sake) but I can't get it on.
Fact: Circumcision decreases a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision INcreases a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia.
The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.
Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew from deleting my ONE sentence I want to add? Thanks, 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Mine and Griot's talk pages
I object to any display of the comments I made that will have them taken out of context. Either display the comments within the context of the actual short conversation where I was RESPONDING to Griot's snide taunting question of if I actually lived in SF or not or do not display them at all as this is a clear attempt at misrepresenting me by making it look like I said what I did out of the blue (and indeed as a threat as he falsely claimed). And if you look at Griot's history page I never even tried to delete the whole conversation but only restored it to the way it originally occurred as can be seen here: [7] Just as I said on the ANI page It would clearly not be acceptable if somebody posted a sentence on my talk page that said...<br\>
- Hey Bill I wanted you to know that I plan to kill the whole trivia section of that article that you wrote.
And I changed that user's comment to say...
- Hey Bill I wanted you to know... that I plan to kill... you.
Regardless of what is viewable in the history for the savvy Wikipedia user Just as Griot has the right to have the comment mentioned in the article available for readers to see I deserve for them to be able to see why those comments were made. Also, I would like to point out that I can solve this myself by just TAKING MY YOUTUBE SHOOTING RANGE VIDEO DOWN. But I have not up to this point. Please respect my wishes and I will leave it up for people to see. BillyTFried (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I made an identical comment as the one above on Griot's talk page in response to Kurykh asking if he cleared this with me and he simply deleted all my comments. Doesn't seem very cooperative eh? Removing the video from youtube now. BillyTFried (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added my response to Kurykh on Griot's talk page again and Griot immediately deleted it again calling it vandalism. He also removed Kurykh's comment asking about if I was ok with this as well. You see this is the game he plays. [8] BillyTFried (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Griot has requested via email that I post something to his talk page that he says will resolve the whole situation. His request seems reasonable enough so I will oblige him. BillyTFried (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Theory or not theory?
You said here that the Armenian Genocide is not a theory. But it is a theory, based on historical research by Armenian historians, it is a conclusion that Armenian historians have come up with and labeled as such. The Big-Bang is a theory, Evolution is a theory, doesn't mean they aren't true and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't evidence for them. Unless your hypothesis is that anything thats a theory is automatically false? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taner_Ak%C3%A7am&action=history
Let's face it, the label of Armenian Genocide, is a POV itself, it is concluding that massacres of Armenians were the deliberate action of the CUP government. Yet the Armenian historians have yet to provide the proof of this intent. They only provide the death tolls, and argue that the forged Andonian documents are true because of the death toll of Armenians, by saying "since there are so many dead, there must have been an extermination policy". I'm not trying to argue with your beliefs or what you've heard about the issue from non-experts. All I am saying is, that it is a theory because it is a point of view held mainly by Armenian nationalists. While there are some Western historians and scholars who approve of the genocide label, there are more that disapprove with it, and in the field of Ottoman history, there is a large majority who disapprove of this label.
But perhaps since the word theory is applied to mainly Sciences, I suppose you can argue that it is not the appropriate term for this POV, then please by all means, recommend me a better term and correct my ignorance. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding RfM
A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Trying this again
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ears burning?
You've been mentioned at WP:AE#Waterboarding and Neutral Good. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please contribute here
- Please contribute here Prehistoric BalkansMegistias (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)