User talk:Alarob/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

ProfMozart

I think you meant those links to point to his talk page not his user page. Hesperian 00:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. Hashed links are always blue if the target page exists, even if the target section doesn't. Hesperian 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

After some investigation by other users it has be found that Sir Kindle is nothing more than a sock puppet of ProfMozart, although he is still trying to deny this using a rather hilarious story on the talk page of ProfMozart. Now we can breathe a little easier knowing that this user has finally be taken down. Xtreme racer 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Viral Marketing

You're right about my addition bordering on pov/personal research ... but the recent over-use of the term (re: Transformers/Cloverfield) is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. My hope is that I maintain neutrality by restricting my comments to a Criticism sub-section =) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo (talk • contribs) at 18:35, 13 July 2007

---

Hi Rob, I been tryin to get a hold of you for awhile. As you could imagine its been quite hard lol. But seriously could you please E-Mail me, so we can discuss the Hapsburgs, and some other things.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 08:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox at Holy Roman Empire

Thanks for letting me know about your reversion. I know it wouldn't always look the same (indeed, I don't use the default font setup); I've been trying to find a way to make multi-line items wrap better. I don'think I'm likely to find one, tbh.

By the way, there's no point in using <br/>, rather than <br>, as MediaWiki automatically outputs the XHTML-compliant form when it renders databased content. Whilst I'm a developer by trade and only write XHTML these days, I tend to use the HTML form within Wikipedia, as it's that little bit clearer to read.

Thanks again, anyways! — OwenBlacker 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries; being obsessed with slashes is prolly the most important thing to remember about XHTML :o) — OwenBlacker 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rob I was just wonering if you got my E mail --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ariakon Overlord

I see you reverted most of my edits on the Ariakon Overlord article saying Wikipedia isn't a sales brochure. I didn't write it with that intent and I don't think it sounded like that. The first sentence saying that it is the most selling paintball pistol on the market is true and referenced and establishes the notability of the article (the article is proposed for deletion because of the notability). Are there any other reasons why you thought it sounded like a sales brochure? Thanks! Also please respond on my talk page as I will probably forget to check back here. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will look for some other sources, but the only ones I could see were from sellers. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

German Page

Hello Rob, how are you, I did infact take a look at that German project you showed me, it is very interesting, and I'm sure after some more research I will be able to contribute to the project, I'll let you know what I come up with.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

vacations2discover links

Worldtraveler1 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Stevie, you wrote that our website vacations2discover.com is not the official website, but it is. We are payed by the St. Augustine Convention and Visitors Bureau - so as all other clients where i posted the links. Please do not remove the links again.

• Err no, good job on removing the links. Regardless if they are official or not it is still advertising. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my response to Worldtraveler1. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1806

Hello Rob, check out the message under the one you posted earlier today in my message page. I'm not pushing nothing, I'm just putting down facts, and seeing where they go here. And about my spelling friend, you know better then anyone my english isnt exactly the king's english. take care. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was glad to see that you and Flamarande were simply having a mutually respectful discussion (and a good one that I am enjoying also). Please overlook my suspicions. As for the comment on spelling, you may chalk it up to the uncivil habits of a former copy editor. Seriously, though, I would consider it a favor if you would take care to distinguish ludicrous from Ludacris. If nothing else, respect the word's Latin roots. ;-) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 17:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Careless comments

Skatewalk, I am saddened by the tone of several remarks you have made at Talk:Ancient history of Yemen that accuse two other editors, including me, of an "agenda." Some remarks could be construed as personal attacks. I assume that these remarks are the result of carelessness. I am writing to you in the belief that we can work together for the sake of a better article, rather than basing our relations on mistrust or anger. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 18:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct if I am wrong? Thats your comment right?

12:53, 10 August 2007 Alarob (Talk | contribs) (18,197 bytes) (RV per talk page. Very poor English. Undid revision 150363916 by Skatewalk (talk)) (undo) --Skatewalk 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. It is a remark about the text, not the author, and I consider it accurate according to an objective standard of correct English usage. I am sorry if it offended you. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you in anyway. I was ultra defensive.--Skatewalk 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just saw the changes you made to the article, thanks for fixing the language --Skatewalk 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion continues here.) (N.B. Page was blanked, user was blocked, then banned as a sock puppet.)

Wikimania Atlanta

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta bid teem meeting

Hello, The Wikimania Atlanta bid teem meeting is being held nightly on weekdays. This week meetings are starting at 9:30EDT and running for a few hours. If you can make it to the meeting (or at least pop in) that would be wonderful. Meetings are in the IRC channel #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.net.--Cspurrier 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Hi Rob, if you have a little spare time could you please check out the Devilz Candy article. I'd really appricate it.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Black

Please add a reasoning for your "delete" on this AfD. AfD is a consensus, not a vote, so just saying "delete" with no reason is moot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Sorry to dissapoint you Rob, but I thought that I would try to create an article on an off the wall subject just for the heck of it. In retrospect it was a poor idea. Anyways I hope you'll be happy to learn I am going to stick with the subjects that I have expertese. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim Baen's Universe Article Issues

I've done a rewrite of Jim Baen's Universe in order to clear up your concerns. Please take a peek and let me know if you think it's still lacking.

Thanks,

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

I think your changes are good, but they do obscure the reason that we believe that the person in question is a Muslim. Alexwoods 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will knee-jerk revert this (and if they do I'll knee-jerk revert them), and I think he's of some slight historical significance so the passage might as well stay. I'll think about how to work the information in and look at it again tomorrow. Alexwoods 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll look around. I know I've seen stuff both on enslaved Muslims and survivals of Islam in the Sea Islands. Alexwoods 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Re. [1]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RedSpruce 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I was going to drop you a line the other day re: the Islam in the US article. Thanks for speaking up on this. It's a mess and certainly could use some further scrutiny. Your points are right on, and I hope you stick around on this one. Cheers--Jonashart 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done

Your work is admirable. Really.

Really nicely done, all around. Thanks.--Jonashart 07:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:J

Thanks for your support on the WP:J proposal! I'll be setting it up soon. I had considered doing something about the Ponte Vedra vandal in question, but it was just an IP and not a member name so I'm not sure how it would work. Maybe as part of WP:J, we could form an anti-vandal area explaining best practices. JaxDaily 08:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's alive! Unfortunately WP:J was taken but we have some other shortcuts - for example, WP:JX. Feel free to improve/add topics as you like! JaxDaily 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical information

If the template can't be adjusted to automatically place such articles in a specific category, it would probably be a good idea to create a list of the articles so tagged. There are a number of specific projects relating to History in general out there, and it might be possible to try to either give them a list or a transcluded subpage listing the articles in their scope which lack historical information, so maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history would get a list of articles relating to India lacking such information, and so on. The project itself would probably keep the master list of all articles. I can add the project to the new projects section of the Community Portal as well. That's all that comes to mind immediately, but as any other ideas come to mind I'll place them on the project talk page. John Carter 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The only really good coders I know are Kingboyk, who's inactive right now, and Kirill Lokshin, the guru of esoteric templates, who is also on ArbCom, lead coordinator of Military history, and lord knows what all else. I have had some limited success myself, but all I ever did was crib the info like you're saying you're doing. That does generally work out, though, if you're careful about it. If you would want me to try a hand at that, though, I could. I can't guarantee results, but I can at least try. John Carter 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Estevanico (Islam in the United States)

CltFn, please address the points I raised [[2]] concerning Estevánico of Azamor. Your expressed concerns led me to devote several hours to research on this question, and your most recent edit seems to neglect the conclusion that this work led to, namely: "Most historians now living consider Estevánico an African Muslim. No historians, to my knowledge, insist that he was not an African Muslim."

If the conclusion I reached is wrong, please indicate where my error lies. Your opinion, of course, does not count. Neither does mine. I have cited two primary sources and a list of modern historians, all supporting the identification of Estevánico as a Muslim who explored what is now the American Southwest on behalf of Spain.

Also, please refrain from introducing careless errors into the article text, as you have done several times in this section of the article. For example, "Spanish" should be capitalized. You also introduced an error by writing that "his owner explored the future states of Arizona and New Mexico for the Spanish Empire." Estevánico preceded his then-owner in exploring the region, as even your author, Rayford W. Logan, reports. I am amending your edit and ask you to discuss changes on the talk page first. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read pretty much the same sources as you have , and I have not come accross anyone that is able to advance more than circumstancial conjecture about Estevanico's religion. He has never been described as a Muslim in any of the primary sourves , he has been described as a "negro alarabe" as you well know. Now if some authors want to conclude that this means that he was a Muslim , then all they are doing is making a conjecture. (And most of them even admit that this is a conjecture on their part) It would be dishonest on our part to portray this conjecture as anything more than what it is. We should disclose to the readers that some authors are making a conjecture about Estevanico's background based on a very amibiguous description of "negro Alarabe". Furthermore , if you look at the rest of Estevanico's life , it does not show any indication of practicing any religion , even when he was free. He did not even change his name from Little stephen. CltFn 11:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What evidence would suffice for you, if negro alárabe and Fernando Alarçon's physical description (a bearded black man) do not? Do you require a direct statement from the 16th century that Cabeza de Vaca's servant was a Muslim? By that standard of proof, Wikipedia would have to seriously entertain a fringe theory that Shakespeare was a Muslim, because there is no documentary proof that he was a Christian. We are unlikely to get such evidence even for prominent people in the 16th century, much less for a Spaniard's slave.

Alarçon's description, and Cabeza de Vaca's word negro, show that we are not dealing with an ethnic Arab. So how would you account for the adjective alárabe and the ubiquitous descriptions of him as a "Moor"? I have addressed the theory, tentatively advanced by Rayford Logan in 1940, that alárabe was supposed to describe moral failings. I hope you at least admit that Logan was concerned with demonstrating Estevánico's ethnic identity, not his religion.

For all other historians I have read, Estevánico's religion was not controversial. But for you, it is. I admit I am puzzled by this.

I suppose we could state that like other Hispanic Muslims, Estevánico might have been a convert to Christianity, or a Morisco. But we cannot plausibly claim that an African man, born in Morocco, and enslaved by a Spaniard, was a Roman Catholic, and there was no other kind of Christian for him to be at that time and place. And frankly the Moor/Morisco distinction seems like it belongs in Estevánico's biographical article, if anywhere. For our purposes he is only one fairly minor historical figure.

Why is this such a controversial point for you? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well to begin and in all honesty , the only thing we know is that we do not know. There are some tentative hypotheses , some interpretations of meager ambiguous scraps of information which have been advanced but nothing is conclusive one way or the other. So lets disclose this fact to the readers OK? I am not saying that Estevanico was or was not a muslim or that he was or was not a Catholic. I have read most of the referenced secondary sources and I can say that in most cases their authors have using begun their essays by saying that what they are about to treat is conjecture. Thus , in all fairness we should acknowledge that there is really no definitive conclusions that can be made from existing evidence. We can certainly mention that some authors have advanced the hypothesis that he could have been a Moor. This does not mean that he was a moor or a Muslim , it just means that some have suggested that as a possibility. Other others have focused on his identity as a negro and some others have discarded such notions all together.

You ask why is this so controversial for me ? It isn't , it is a simple matter of intellectual honesty.--CltFn 02:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"The only thing we know is that we do not know." Well, yes, skepticism is always a defensible stance: See Pyrrho. But I stand by my conclusion that Estevánico's identification as a Moor -- hence a Muslim -- is as certain as any such statement can be about a person who died more than 400 years ago. To write it as a qualified statement -- "that some authors have advanced the hypothesis that he could have been a Moor" -- is in my view a case of WP:UNDUE. Unless you can show me a reliable source that expresses doubt about Estevánico's identity as a Moor, I cannot agree to a qualified statement.

Please consider the following points:

• ..."if you look at the rest of Estevanico's life , it does not show any indication of practicing any religion , even when he was free." There is an axiom among historians: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Consider: If Cabeza de Vaca's Relación did not give any account of Estevánico eating meat, should one conclude that Estevánico was a vegetarian?
• "He did not even change his name from Little stephen." Who wrote down all the evidence we have of Estevánico's life? Spaniards. They called him Estevánico. We do not know what he called himself.

I am willing to go this far right now: "The first Muslim to enter the historical record in North America was may have been Estevánico of Azamor..." Maybe this will address your concern that there is a chance that Estevánico was not Muslim. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to that wording because in makes an initital assumption that he was the first Muslim , thus that he was a muslim. Why not go back to the wording I had before ?--CltFn 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained why: WP:UNDUE. "Unless you can show me a reliable source that expresses doubt about Estevánico's identity as a Moor, I cannot agree to a qualified statement" like your "Some contemporary writers have suggested that one of the slaves in the early spanish expeditions Estevánico of Azamor may have been a Moor and thus by association believe that he could have been a Muslim."[3]

The odds of Estevánico's never having been a Muslim are remote to the point of absurdity. Nevertheless I have proposed one way to address your concern. Since you still object, can you suggest something else besides a long maybe-maybe-not phrase? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

James Milner

Not asking for a copyedit here. But this is currently a FAC and in wondered if you could tell me if you feel it passes 1a of the criteria. And if not what needs to be impoved. Buc 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback man. A few questions/comments

• "Here and there I feel shut out of this article" could you specify where this happens. I've fixed the "differed", "picks out" and Bobby Robson bit, anything eles?
• "seem like mere fan-talk" well that is an important part of football
• Yes I did feel went I wrote the article that it had the air of being biased towards Milner. The trouble is I can't find much negative stuff about him. All I can find is fan on forums saying stuff like "Milner had a nightmare" which of course is not a realiable source.
• "Is he the youngest scorer in a Premier League game?" he was, but isn't anymore
• "Was switching from Leeds to Newcastle a big deal?" for who? him, no he had already established himself. Newcastle, not really they're remained the same standard of team.
• "Does his quiet way of life set him apart from other footballers?" No not at all. In fact I wonder if I should remove this.
• "Is he likely to be remembered ten years after he stops playing?" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But there is something about how he could play for England.
• "The notability question ought to be answered at the beginning of the article." Well the reason he has an entire on here is, as it should be with an article, explained in the first sentance.

I think it could be hard to pretend I know nothing about the subject but I'll it go and I'll come back to you when I'm done. Thanks again Buc 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how is it now? Buc 10:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the article another look. Buc 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bhamwiki userbox

• Sounds cool to me. I hereby grant permission to use the logo for a Wikipedia userbox. (Although some might argue that only free-use images are permitted. I'll let you fight that battle). --Dystopos 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [4]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [5].

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 18:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bhamwiki down

Hm. Never seen that before. I'll see what I can do. --Dystopos 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nova pic

Hey Rob, thanks for the note about my Nova (golden eagle) pic and sorry for the delayed response (overlooked your comment previously). I'm quite amazed and happy at how much it's been used. I may have to go ahead and self-nom it for featured pic even though it's not up to the usual technical standards there, but rather on the basis of utility to the project. I'm betting there are very few (non-iconized) images that are as widely used. AUTiger » talk 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8