User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Archives/2006

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Pseudo-Richard/Archives/2006, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Please Use Edit Summaries==

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish conquest of Mexico[edit]

Richard, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game)."

I'm moving the page back to Spanish conquest of Mexico, please leave it there.
It appears (I'm not sure) that you moved the content; you should always use the "move" button at the top of the page to move or rename an article instead of moving the content. That way the page history stays in one place. When moving the page back I think I will kill some of the history now. But what needs to be done, needs to be done...
When you revert a change by someone else (in this case the moving of the page to its correct name by myself), make sure that you're doing the right thing, to avoid useless edits by everyone.

Absolutely no offense intended, you've done great work the last few days! Piet 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming[edit]

Please use edit summaries. It is especially useful when ones edit is to a controversial topic. Many people will rush to revert edits on controversial topics from relatively new users and they are only more likely to do so if there is no edit summary. JoshuaZ 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say the same, now I found it's already mentioned. Your last edits are numerous, but they make it difficult to follow an article's history. See also what the {{subst: preview }}-Button brings up:

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.

Cheers, Hardern 07:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer on my discussion page! I also sometimes do three or more changes in various chapters of an article. I just wanted to let you know about the preview function in case you didn't already notice it. And I didn't mention anything about edit summaries... Hardern 08:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptation to Global Warming[edit]

I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page.

Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

The "how-to" criticism was off-the-mark because the article was never intended to be a "how-to". The skimpiness of the text and the section titles suggested that it was a "how-to" but it was never meant to be that.

The "unencyclopedic" charge was valid since the initial text extracted from the Mitigation of global warming article was very sketchy. I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources.

Would you take a look at current version of the Adaptation to global warming article and then consider voting to keep the article? Richard 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, my vote is a moot point since the nomination was withdrawn. Frankly I give you credit for making some immediate changes. My criticism of the article was multi-pronged ranging from Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or soapbox to potential POV. Overall I used a general unencyclopedic to capture everything.

People tend to jump on stuff pretty quickly around here, as you have found out. Unfortunately a lot of unmitigated crap finds its way out here such that people want to get at it sooner rather than later. But you did a good job in addressing concerns without being the prick that so many out here become when their articles are under AfD.Montco 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Siege of Tenochtitlan[edit]

Absolutely no problem here with the changes you made to Aztec strength, but if I remember correctly, the Aztec army at the siege had been greatly augmented by levies from the outlying regions, so using the population of Tenochtitlan as an estimate might not be accurate. I imagine I got my numbers from Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture, and I believe Hanson essentially took his information on Spanish military operations directly from William H. Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico. I would generally trust Prescott, but, of course, the mistake could be entirely mine. Anyway, I'll take some opportunity to check the details. Cheers. Albrecht 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carthage[edit]

I'm implying that the possibility of Hannibal=Marduk is definitely there, based on Hannibal's language, and if you WHOIS the Marduk related IPs, they are from all over the US, with some emphasis on AOL - so the different IP, though normally an indicator, in this case mean little. If that's how you read what I wrote, OK - or did my other entry totally confuse? This guy's weird, esp as he also appears to have a yahoo.fr email.Bridesmill 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I only wish he would have engaged - had a lot to offer potentially, but intransigence does/did not help. End of the day, the Carthage article is good candidate for taking to FA, which I never would have figured out if I hadn't been RfC'd here. Bridesmill 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to put this here, rather than the talk page.

I don't think the problem is the content at all. I really don't care whether the "child sacrifice" is included or not. Its a non-issue to me - it can be true, false, or contested, as long as there are references to back up whatever points are on the page, I don't care. The issue is that any version other than Marduk's is reverted. This means ripping out any content that he finds objectionable (any mention of Carthage being depicted in Greek and Roman literture, the mention of the Roman recolonization of the city site a century after the end of the third Punic War, the fact that child sacrifice is attributed to the Carthaginians by some Roman writers, and for reasons I can't fathom, the disambugation link to other uses of the term "Carthage"), and adding content that is unverified, or legendary being portrayed as fact. Heck - look at his own responses to the discussion about Dido being mytho-histrorical.

You are more than welcome to try and "convert" marduk. I just don't think it will happen. Read his own words. He has his Truth, and any who do not support Truth are Trolls and Vandals propagating Myth, and marduck removes such. I don't think he will accept any changes you make either. You can refernece them, source them, footnote them - but if they come from Greek or Roman sources, he won't accept such Spam (his term), he has said so repeatedly. If you add content that he finds objectionable, regardless of how it is sourced, I beleive he will remove it. Re-read the talk page, ignore what anyone else says, read marduk's intentions in marduk's own words. See what he will accept and what he will do with that which he doesn't accept. Heck - I already tried finding a compromise position with him, leaving his "new" sections in, and keeping the "old" sections he found objectionable, tagging questionable uncited claims in both old and new here. This was the response. (both are "comparisons" in the edit log, feel free to look at it edit by edit if you like).

You said: "Maintaining NPOV would dictate that we mention both POV and also mention which one seems to be the majority POV". I agree 210%. Write that section. Put it in. See if he will let it stand. Even post it as a proposal in the talk page, chock full of references and footnotes. If it stands, in the main article, untouched by marduk, I will be amazed, and forced to consider that I am being unfair towards marduk (which I admit is always a possibility).

I find it laudable that you made the effort to find sources for him, but unless they are sources that support his point, I believe he will reject them. I find it praiseworthy that you are willing to try and "convert" him. If you succeed, no one will be happier, or more impressed about that, than I. Also no one will be more surprised. - Vedexent 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, with you and marduck editing the talk page, a large chunk has gotten duplicated. Damned if I'm touching it though. You may want to take that out. - Vedexent 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excellent point. Consider me shut up :) - Vedexent 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish conquest of Mexico[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Spanish conquest of Mexico article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Madman 04:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have reviewed your rewrite of the Spanish conquest of Mexico article and could no longer find the multiple copyright violations. I have inserted that updated file back in the main article, so we should be good. 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use Preview feature[edit]

Going forward, I wonder if you could reduce the number of Saves. I see that you made perhaps 30 different edits to the Spanish Conquest Temp article. Looking thru your User Contributions, I see that from 18:38 until 18:47 today UTC, you 12 edits to Mitigation of global warming.

The problem with that number of edits is that it's difficult to review earlier versions of an article if the editor has to review dozens of edits. It essentially swamps the system with minor changes. Please use the Show preview feature. Madman 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I've been working on some other subjects, I'm still following the Cortes / Tenochtitlan articles but a bit from a distance. A lot has happened there in the last month, which is very good. I still intend to work on them but other things keep getting in the way. A general remark is that at the moment enormous amounts of text are added, which has led to a few articles that are too large. And we should find some images to illustrate the articles. Usually contemporary paintings are very good for this, as there are no copyrights (you can scan them from a book and use them under the { {PD-art} } license - only goes for pictures of paintings, not pictures of statues etc). Anyway, we're very good on the quantity part but we need some more quality now. But we're moving on, which is great. Piet 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis, Piet. We need to concentrate on bringing all the present pieces together in a coherent narrative. That would mean removing data/words that are duplicated within articles and, to a lesser extent, between articles. And we need images, too. Madman 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me name[edit]

"Piet" is short for "Pieter" and "Pete" is short for "Peter". Actually, Pete exists only in English, not in Dutch. In Dutch, Piet is short for both Peter and Pieter. I was named after my grandfather, whose name was Peter but who everyone called Piet. I add Pete mostly so non-Dutch speakers know how to pronounce it (after all they all know Pete Sampras), they usually have no idea otherwise and pronounce it like Pyett, Pi-et or Peeyet or something (did you pee yet :-) )... Nice try, but no :-) Piet 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Pieter and Peter exist in Dutch. Piet is my real name (I just mention the – or a – long form for explanation), like some people in the US are called Dick instead of Richard. Ghent is in the northern part of Belgium, Flanders, where we speak Dutch. The southern part is called Wallonia and speaks French. There's a very small German speaking part and the capital Brussels is bilingual French/Dutch. Great fun! Apart from some professors, no one really knows how the country is organized, but it seems to work (a bit). The Dutch that we speak is often called Flemish, it is quite different from the Dutch of the Netherlands although officially it is the same language. We can watch Dutch tv without a problem, but in every day language we're sometimes perplexed because they use words that we've never even heard of (and vice versa of course). Like US/UK English but even worse. Also names are often different, some names are common in the Netherlands but not at all here. And the French names are something else again, (I would have been Pierre there). So yeah, language is definitely relevant. Belgium is a very special case of course language-wise. Most other European countries simply have one language. Piet 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re. Mediation offer[edit]

Thanks for offering to mediate! Recently in the "discussion" page of the disputed article re. this matter a solution was suggested that we list the "facts" about the translations (the who, what, when) and then link offsite to reviews of the translations. This is the solution I endorse, rather than trying to include balanced citations from reviews in the article itself.--Mcalkins 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution was proposed and discussed on April 12 and 13, 2006. However, User:Cubdriver has not yet responded to the proposal.--Mcalkins 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Yeah, I hesitated before adding the Aztec template to Hernan Cortes, that's why I didn't put it on top of the page. The problem is that the Hernan Cortes article contains a lot of information that is relevant to the history of the Aztec world. Maybe we could (again) move part of the Hernan Cortes page to a different subpage. But first we should create a structure for the History of the Aztec empire, maybe Nanahuatzin could make an outline for this. I think we have a lot of information, it's mostly a matter of moving it to the right pages. Piet 07:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning templates in Hernán Cortés: the position is ok I think, we'll see if it bothers anyone else. I think templates usually receive short names though, maybe we'd better move it to something like "spainamerica" or "newspain" (hm the last one can be interpreted in two ways...).

Concerning moving information from the article: I was wrong, should have reread it first. What is left now deals mostly with Hernan Cortes personally. It is probably still not a bad idea to leave him in the Aztec template since he played such an important role. Piet 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning template name: it's not a rule, the naming rules are the same as for articles so no problem. It's just a bit easier to type a short name and since it's not something the visitor ever sees people tend to use shorter names. Don't bother changing it if you've already added it to different pages, I thought it was still only at the Hernan Cortes article. Piet 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PreColombian civilizations[edit]

I think the information fits better at Pre-Columbian or List of pre-Columbian civilizations, so adding information there would be better. I've added the two civilizations to List of pre-Columbian civilizations that weren't already there and redirected PreColombian civilizations there. TimBentley (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

In Search of Lost Time mediation[edit]

Hello! Thanks so much for your offer to mediate the problem regarding the In Search of Lost Time article. It's been a while since the (unresolved) conflict, but I know at least myself and Mcalkins are still active and hoping for a resolution. The problem is that User:Mcalkins and User:Cubdriver can't agree on how to evalute the old (Scott Moncrieff) and new (Penguin) translations of the novel. Mcalkins is trying to reach a "balance" where there are both good and negative comments about both. Cubdriver seems to want to promote the new translation over the old ones. I've suggested removing all evaluations of the translations - just state the bare facts - and link to several reviews of them in external links. Mcalkins & another user seem receptive to this idea, but Cubdriver has not responded. Guermantes 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Has anything been resolved? I've been watching this page and the ISoLT page and nothing seems to be occuring... Guermantes 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Richardshusr! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US article intro[edit]

Hi, there's a discussion page for the US article that talks about how the intro should look. Just want you to know as the addition might be reverted by someone later on. Thanks.--Ryz05 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for appearing a little overreacting when I reverted your edit, but I just thought it did not flow as well as the original version. There was a discussion about the intro, and I'm not exactly sure if the section on Introduction is specifically dedicated to it, so you are welcome to use that section for discussion.--Ryz05 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I prefer the intro be at three paragraphs- just a summarization of early history, and the part about it becoming a superpower after the World Wars and the Cold War. This will keep it to a minimum, without going into too much details and risk the chance of controversy. You are welcome to discuss. Thank you.--Ryz05 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last sentence should be changed back to before, because saying that it exerts global dominance and saything it's a hyperpower are the saying, which is repetitive. Please discuss.--Ryz05 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the US article[edit]

what do you think/do about the 'expansion' tags that are now placed in nearly every section of the article? Thanks Hmains 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your suggestion[edit]

I have taken your suggestion into account. --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec codices notes[edit]

Richard, I decided to remove the Aztec template from the Aztec codices article. The template has pushed the codex images off to the bottom and the side and the article looks jumbled now. When we get more verbiage added to the article, there will be room for the template, but until then I'd like to highlight the images from the codices themselves. Thanks, Madman 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD George Harbottle[edit]

Hi, this morning I noticed that you put an AfD tag on the article, but that it wasn't listed on the general AfD list , which meant the community wouldn't see and discuss it, and that the article wouldn't get deleted. I listed it, but also took the liberty of reformatting your text in a slightly more 'traditional' AfD format, since most voters will be seeing it on this page: [1]. I hope you don't mind the way I changed the text, if you want to revert my actions the original text still exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Harbottle/temp. Kind regards, --Joann e B 05:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know that feeling :) By the way, I have a tab in my monobook that sort of 'automates' the whole AfD process, grabbing the right templates and putting them in the right places. I don't know if you list stuff on AfD often, but if you do, a tab like that can certainly be worth a consideration. --Joann e B 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Germans after WW II[edit]

Great, thx for your amendments, now the page apears to be much more systematic and objective. However I hope that it will stay like this at least for a little while. (213.70.74.164 10:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I'd just like to thank you for the work you're doing in the Expulsion article. Before your improvements, the article moved nowhere for months/years (despite hundreds of edits). Now, there is new hope. --Wikimol 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're both very welcome. Thank you for taking the time to express your appreciation. Curiously, I knew nothing about this topic until I came in via the RFC process. I've learned a lot since. --Richard 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject[edit]

I asked you to self revert. I take it you are saying no? Dominick ^(TALK) 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying "No". You have only to look at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church, Talk:Roman Catholic Church and Talk:Anti-Catholicism to see that you are spawning a discussion across three Talk Pages which should be held on one page. The logical and standard WikiProject way to hold these kinds of discussion is on a subpage of the Project main page.

I didn't come up with this idea. It is in the standard template for WikiProjects Template:WikiProject.

Read my response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy for a more detailed explanation.

--Richard 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like working with others eh? We didnt use it on Catholic 101 before. I think more than a few people will object if you read the archives. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your text is unclear.

"didn't use it on Catholic 101 before" - didn't use what? presumably discussion forums

"I think more than a few people will object if you read the archives." - perhaps, but what archives? I didn't see any and I didn't see any old debate about discussion forums on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism.

Hey, why not give this a rest and see who else objects? I think it should be clear that I will go with the consensus. However, you do not constitute a consensus by yourself. If the consensus is to delete the Strategy subpage, I will have no choice in whether it gets deleted or not.

I was willing to wait for a consensus vote for the move from Anti-Catholicism to Criticism of the Catholic Church except that User:Vaquero pre-empted the vote by changing the intro paragraph of the Anti-Catholicism article. If I had my preference, I would have preferred that he voted his opinion and waited for the result of the vote before making his edit. But he didn't wait. He was "bold". So I moved the text to be consistent with his edit.

All this can be undone if you can muster votes to oppose the move. I haven't seen anybody else voting in your favor.

However, I do not consider a 3-1 vote to be a consensus. I am advertising this issue across all three articles to see what the consensus is across the editors of all three articles. By putting it on the Strategy subpage of the Catholicism 101 project, I am inviting anybody who is interested in the Catholicism 101 project to vote on this issue. This is just the opposite of a cabal. This is trying to be inclusionary and get everybody who has an opinion to state their opinion and influence the consensus.

We need to form a broad consensus in order to have a strategy that will hold and be defensible against newcomers who may have a different idea about how to do things. It's clear that the organization of Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism have changed over time. Let's hash this out and document the consensus so that we don't have to keep re-organizing the article every time somebody decides their approach is better.

--Richard 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoax[edit]

Good job uncovering that hoax. Cheers. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 14:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seconded :) Kind regards, --Joann e B 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article about German population transfer[edit]

I agree that only citations with reliable sources should be used and only if they relate to the issues decision making and views involved with the process. --Molobo 10:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the distinction you are making about "only if...".

Are you saying that text not related to "decision making and views involved with the process of expulsion" shouldn't be included? I think I agree with that.

Or are you saying that text that is not related to decision making and views involved with the process of expulsion doesn't need to be cited? I don't think you're saying that and I wouldn't agree with it.

Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of "process"?

Sorry, I need you to be more clear.

--Richard 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Elkman. Note that this RFC is explicitly for comments on my behavior, not yours, Nathan's, or anyone else's. I want your comments first before I get anyone else's. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-marital vs extra-marital sex[edit]

It is under the heading Human Sexual behaviour ands reproductive matter. It is in the last lina of the first paragraph in that section.

A word of warning, the user who posted the original comment is an exponent of mildly anti-religous and homophobic material, I am mediating a case she is currently involved with and found that comment whilst investigating each users backgrounds and couldn't help but comment :D -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)^talk 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police organization section in Crime in Mexico article[edit]

Hello, thanks for your comment on my Talk page. I absolutely think that the information belongs in the article, and I was also having trouble rewriting it. What I suggest is that we try to integrate it in the Corruption section, under the "In the police" heading. That way, we can relate the police organizational layers to corruption and its effect on crime. Does that makes sense? I will be looking for citations and data for that section. Thanks and hopefully with some work on our parts, we can turn this into a great, maybe even Featured Article! Aguerriero (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming[edit]

Thanks for your extended reply in Talk:Global warming! If there was one thing I could change about the way folks are educated, I think it would be to get them to intuitively understand that, next to everything we call a "fact" (or a "theory", "hypothesis", etc.), there's a tiny little number that's labled "confidence factor".

So we would teach people that, for example, "2+2=4" and the little footnote would say "confidence factor=0.9999...". Or we would teach them that "the Earth formed 4 +/-n billion years" ago and the footnote would say "confidence factor=0.99" And this would also enable us to teach things like "subatomic particles are made from quantum strings, confidence factor=0.5".

Once people always associated a confidence factor with all stated "facts", we could then finally have a rational discussion about stuff like global warming and evolution-via-natural-selection. But right now, most people have no idea what the words "fact", "theory", or even "science" and the "scientific method" mean. And that blocks most attempts at rational discussions with non-science professionals.

So thanks again for your talk posting; well said!

Atlant 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism[edit]

Hola! (veo k podemos hablarnos en algunos idiomas mas...) The list of assassinated leaders is still in the decolonization article — maybe I should link to it better, I don't know. The "decolonization" article needs a lot of work since it is at the time being just a collection of charts & lists... Concerning Ngo Diem, well, I just forgot him & ain't an expert either on that matter. If you know something about it (else I suppose it quite easy finding info). Else, about the general tone of the article, I'm sure there will arise many contestations ! I'm sure we will have to change that, and find a more neutral way of putting things. But "NPOV" shouldn't be mistaken with a simple battle of opinions which may be better carried on in other places on the web... This is why I originally splitted the Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization, although it hasn't been used yet: I fear that it turns into such a "democratic conversation" ("colonialism was good, because it gave progress to the savage people"/ "colonialism was bad, because it exploited indigenous people" — I think it better to quote historical, litterary, etc. examples, first of all to demonstrate that this controversy has been going on since the beginning of colonization — contrary to the racist remarks which you may find all over the Talk:Human zoo page (which also needs serious copy-editing), the problem is not only that in the 21st century, we're finally "enlightened" and consider "barbaric" the very thought that Indians shouldn't have any souls, as if they were not humans; no, they're has always been anti-colonialist & pro-colonialist opinions, and we should describe this conflict, but not have broad and empties generalities such as the one proposed by Lightningetc.). I named Lightning, because he has a point concerning the "unequal trade" Marxist POV. But it would be as much POV not to state this popular conception, especially since it hasn't lost one bit of its relevancy (e.g. see Bolivian Gas War and Evo Morales' recent controversed nationalization — it may not be a good idea, I don't know, but if you don't consider the history of colonialism and the famous sentence that Bolivia is a "donkey on a goldmine", which has been always looted of its resources, than you surely agree on the importance of allusions to such "unequal trade" — the recent negotiations at the WTO concerning the Doha cycle on agriculture goes in the same problem: take out tarriff protection for agriculture, the US and the EU can sell services and thus buy more agricultural products, no problem...) In other words, I have no doubt on the controversy that will arise from this article, and I certainly admit that I've given a certain slant to it (everyone has his POV). This will be doubtlessly counter-balanced sooner or later! Lapaz 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say[edit]

That im quite taken by your neutral and objective view in regards to discussions. This rarely happens in historical debates on wiki. Take my best wishes for your work. --Molobo 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

macedonia[edit]

Instead of prodding Macedonia - The Constitution you should have changed it into an interwiki link. But at least could you give us the link to the article on Wikisource, please? -- RHaworth 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move of archive page[edit]

Hey; I've moved Expulsion of Germans after World War II./Archive4 to Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive4; use this naming format when creating the fifth archive. Thanks for maintaining the page. ~ PseudoSudo 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, see you've made already; think I've cleaned it all up, looks good. ~ PseudoSudo 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I appreciate your nice comments about being calm, cool, and collected, and hope I can pass those traits on to others! Thanks again.

-- Nataly a 05:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on in the US article[edit]

Was there a criticism to discuss current events? I think that's ridiculous. We talked about what happened a few years ago in the History section, we might as well talk about some of the important things that are going on today, since many readers would like to know what's going on currently.--Ryz05 _t 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I thought I read somewhere in Wikipedia space that discussion of current events don't belong in Wikipedia because there's too much room for controversy. (as if there wasn't plenty of controversy about historical events) If I run across it again, I'll provide a reference.

If the idea is to document what is on the minds of Americans in the middle of the decade, that's probably OK. If you are trying to document what's going on in 2006, that is probably a bad idea.

--Richard 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for the note. I'll take a look at the discussion and what happened.Bwithh 18:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects[edit]

Sorry, I had not noticed your comment amidst all of the others, my talk page is getting rather long. Anyway, Wikiprojects titles all start with "Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo". For numerous examples, click on some of the links here. If you think that we should have an encyclopedia article about this dictionary (I'm not familiar with it), feel free to write one, but don't call it "WikiProject". — Jun. 5, '06 [05:55] <freak|talk>

Thanks for your reply. I figured you had overlooked my question, hence the reminder.

I looked at a sampling of the Wikiprojects and they follow the standard template for Wikiprojects. The article that you moved from article mainspace to Wikipedia space does not.

That was my point. It doesn't look like a project so why did you move it into Wikipedia space and call it a Wikiproject? It's even in the "Articles to be merged" category. So, it's an article, not a project. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

This is the "project" in question: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of the Catholic Resistance

--Richard 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Wikipedia: space because it was in article space and the title started with "WikiProject" (see [2]). If this was intended to be an article, feel free to remove all references to "Wikipedia", "WikiProject", the shortcut box, etc. from the page, clean it up a bit, format it more like an article, and move it back to article space. — Jun. 5, '06 [12:04] <freak|talk>

Table[edit]

Hi. I think we should objective resources, and avoid nationalistic organisations. I suggest we remove the table from the Center of BDV. The site is full of inaccurate data and nationalistic undertones, which speaks poorly about its credibility.--Molobo 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you perhaps should know that the organisation of Steinbach was founded by a Nazi, Hans Krüger. We shouldn't promote Nazi-founded organisation as objective sources of info. --Molobo 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States article nomination[edit]

Hi, I don't mind you changing your vote, but your explanation for objection is because of the accusation that I was being "inflexible," which is totally unfair. I strongly recommend you to change back your vote, especially when I explain to you why I reverted some of your edits. Thank you.--Ryz05 _t 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't think it is totally unfair. Perhaps a little unfair but maybe you need to see yourself as others see you.

You know that I've worked to improve this article in response to comments on the FAC page. I think I deserve more respect than to have my edits reverted with comments like "bad edits".

I thought about changing my vote back but I've decided to hold off until the various edits have been discussed. I would like to provide you a detailed explanation of the rationale behind each of my edits but I won't have time to do this until next week at the earliest. If you want to go first, be my guest.

In brief, my complaint is that other people in the FAC discussion have complained of "flabby prose". In general, each of my edits was aimed at tightening up that flabby prose. I can imagine that there might be discussion about whether the specific wording of my edits were the best. However, I was particularly incensed at what appeared to be a wholesale reversion of my edits.

In a few short strokes, you wiped out an hour or so of work.

After a second look, it became apparent that you left some of my edits in place. Nonetheless, I think you were way too "inflexible" in insisting on reverting to what I believe qualifies as "flabby prose". There are way too many sentences in the current version where more information is included than is absolutely necessary. If we can't reach rapprochement on this, then there's no point in my working on this article. And, it won't really matter what my vote is because the opposition to granting this article FA status is substantial even without my opposition.

Finally, it is easier to revert than to improve. If you had improved what I had written, I might have disagreed with your wording but I wouldn't have been so annoyed (a mild grumble and swallowed pride as opposed to intemperate blowup).

--Richard 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I caused any grievances, because I didn't know those were yours and I thought they were illogically made by someone anonymous. I provided an explanation of why I reverted them in the talk page of the U.S. article and hope you will understand. Finally, hope you will change back to support and not simply reject because of a single grievance. Thank you.--Ryz05 _t 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatches of Carthage[edit]

Nah - don't worry about it. I understand the need to go through things by the numbers and procedure, even if it would save a whole lot of time and grief to do it pre-emptivly. You hold onto the slim chance it is all bluster - and if it is not, you have the fact that you played by the rules. I can hardly have made a lengthy post about knowing and playing by the rules, and then complain about that :D I think it 99% likely that we're in for another edit war, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the way I read the tea leaves, if he was gonna do it, he'd a done it by now. That's what makes me think this is bluster. I think he's just a troll trying to annoy the hell out of us by making us think he's got this "rewrite" that he's gonna drop on us. Well, where is it?

The other thing is, why announce that you have 17 fellow students lined up to help you? If you're smart enough to organize a cabal, surely you're smart enough not to tell everybody that you've done so, right? I dunno. It all sounds nutso to me.

--Richard 14:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right - we'll see soon. It makes a kind of twisted sense to a particular sad kind of person to announce "their great plan" before they do it so you know exactly how "diabolicallly clever" the grand scheme that they are carrying out is. They seem to be more prevelant on the net. It is all nutso - has been from day one. I'm not gonna worry about it, not debate 'em, play by the rules, and let the process and the admins toast 'em should they get outta line :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please do not change {{Talk Archive}} to {{talkarchive}}[edit]

Hi, apologies if the change of template caused any problems. Feel free put {{Talk Archive}} back if you so wish; I am happy with {{chronological talk archive}} also.

I have been adding {{talkarchive}} to archives not only to inform users, but also becuase it categorizes the pages. Most go into Category:Talk archives, and there are separate categories for the other namespaces, e.g. Category:Wikipedia talk archives. By their nature, archive series build up over time and in some cases have become a bit disorganized, especially where there are many archives. The intention is to have all archive pages in a category, which should hopefully make them easier to find and manage in the future.

Originally I was planning on using {{talkarchive}} for every talk page archive, and {{archive}} for non-talk archives. However, I can see that the alternative wording in {{Talk Archive}} and the extra information in {{chronological talk archive}} will be useful on some pages. I will make a small modification to these two templates so that they also categorize their pages (I won't change the appearence). It will then be possible to use any of the three according to preference, but keep Category:Talk archives complete.

– Gurch 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I am currently using two talk archive templates {{chronological talk archive}} and {{topical talk archive}}.

I copied what you did on {{chronological talk archive}} to {{topical talk archive}}. Could you take a look at {{topical talk archive}} and see if I did it correctly?

Thanks.

--Richard 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should work fine – Gurch 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote in progress to move Counter-Reformation to Catholic Reformation[edit]

This move makes sense because Counter-Reformation implies that that the movement was against reform. Rather as a reform movement within the Catholic Church, it is most precisely known as the Catholic Reformation. This is now the more favored term in academic theological circles.

Please stop by talk:Counter-Reformation for the vote. Thanks, --Vaquero100 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice[edit]

chuckles* Yep. I gave that advice to someone else recently as well. "We teach best what we need to learn most" - Richard Bach ;) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Caught you with troll food! LOL - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 13:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza 3 months block thingy...[edit]

Just so you know Richard, when I wrote my reply about the 3 months blcok idea, I certainly wasn't getting at you or anyone else involved in that discussion. After re-reading it, I see that I might have come across as angry at someone, and that wasn't the case. I was just upset by Redvers outrage at the idea, and I wanted to make my position very clear. And, also, I want to say, and I will on the Esperanza talk page, that I agree with you about changing the wording on our charter to make sure nothing like that guy complaining about one of our members will happen again.

Th e Halo (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Esperanza talk page[edit]

Thanks for your nice comment on the Esperanza talk page about calming down the situation from a while ago - that was very nice! :) -- Nataly a 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some dude put your Criticism of Judaism article up for deletion. Save it now.[edit]

--Greasysteve13 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive standards[edit]

Hi Richardshusr. I noticed that you've been involved with the archive header templates (e.g. {{Archive}} or {{Talkarchive}}) in one way or another and I was wondering if you'd care to join the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:How to archive a talk page#Archive standards. I plan on writing a bot that will do some archival work, so establishing consensus on the use of our archive header templates is important to me. Thanks! ~MDD 46 96 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update[edit]

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and Oranges[edit]

Before I do anything I will post it to the talk page for review. I see that you guys have done a lot of work on the Expulsion of the Germans article, I don't want to upset the applecart. Must get to work--Woogie10w 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi Richard. I've been asked by Petros471 to take on a new trainee. I've checked a few requests at the Esperanza/Admin coaching project and found your profile interesting to me in order to coach you. Please check my reply to Petros. So please, if you are ready, just ^{Wiki me up} -- Szvest 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment ratings for WP:AZTEC-related articles[edit]

Gidday Richard. I was wondering if you've any comments or preferences re some options I've detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aztec, concerning how or whether to go about extending the article rating and assessment scheme to articles also of interest to WP:AZTEC. From a WP:MESO point of view I'd like to include these in the scheme, but perhaps other folk interested in Aztec-specific articles may prefer some other method, their own method, or not really mind either way. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Richard, I've now implemented that functionality separately in the WP:AZTEC project banner {{WP Aztec}} (note rename), and set up the categories needed for the auto-updates to work. Unfortunately this was not completed in time for today's (11 Jul) run of the bot, and so the auto-updated listing, log and stats are not yet created - but these should be created once the bot runs tomorrow (12 Jul, around 0300hrs UTC). If you're able to assess a few before then (see category:Unassessed Aztec articles for those tagged but not yet assessed), you should see these updated in the listing, stats and log. I'll start doing a few myself.

See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aztec, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Assessment subpage I've set up to show the stats, links, and instructional materials. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza#ahem ... er... Hi![edit]

Hey Richard. I've replied (rather verbosely, I admit) to your comment in-page on the Esperanza talk. In short, it's just a pseudonym (described there), and I'm not actually Hispanic at all (although I have been the target of anti-Hispanic racist vandalism on several pages I've written / contributed to by people who don't know that). - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 20:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom for Spanish conquest of Mexico[edit]

Gidday Richard, not sure if you've seen but the GA nom for this article is on-hold, pending some updates/improvements. IMO there's a little more cleaning up to do, and it would be great if some of the main statements could be footnoted with the specific source(s) they came from, but not having written it I don't know which bit comes from where- perhaps you can help.

BTW, the bot has now run and the Aztec-specific rating lists are now generated, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aztec articles by quality. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Catholicism assessments[edit]

Sure Richard, would be happy to help implementing the rating assessment scheme for your Catholicism project. It would take only an hour or two to set up if there's consensus at that project to give it a try. How about I set it up, then your project members can take a look and try it out- if they think it will prove to be useful it can be retained, if not, then it can easily be decommissioned. Will try to do it before the bot runs today so there's something to look at.

As for some guidelines on how to go about setting it up for other projects, let me get back to you, I'll write something up- there are some general guidelines scattered about the place, I'll see if I can pull them together.

The Aztec assessments are coming along, and I think you'll find after today's run the number of articles has grown to around 60 or so.

BTW, if you come across an article already tagged with a WP:MESO assessment, but you think that it would be of particular interest to WP:AZTEC as well, you can simply replace {{WP Mesoamerica}} with {{WP Aztec}} (keeping the parameters, they are the same for both). This will not interrupt the article's appearance in the WP:MESO listings, but will also add it to the WP:AZTEC listings. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment[edit]

I know you already know about this, but I may as well give you the message too.

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mi ra 07:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longer response[edit]

Hi, I felt that you deserved a longer response to your comments at the Catholicism WikiProject. I really will read through that page when I have the time, because you're right, I've walking into a minefield. (One thing I've been looking at are the subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic Church, and once I get them organized, I'm thinking of proposing renames of some of them from Catholic to Roman Catholic.) The thing is, I've tried to read it before, and to me, it's simply a matter of semantics and seems pointless, although I suppose that's why I should read it in the first place. Anyway, I'm rambling on here, so I'll just end with a thank you for your guidance and support. —Mi ra 05:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have now read through about half of Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. I stopped when I realized that it was just the same old arguments being brought up over and over and over. If you think I missed something important somewhere in the middle of the page (I read the bottom of it too) or something on a different page, please let me know. —Mi ra 08:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MiraLuka. Thanks for the messages. If you've read half of Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name, that's plenty. I do agree that the same arguments are raised over and over. Neither side really cares to compromise. I just wanted you to appreciate the strength of emotion and flat-out obstinacy that is involved here so that you don't unintentionally step on toes and then get surprised by the strength of the response.

I am really not very stirred up by this debate. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy with either "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" and I'd just like to move on and do other work. So, I try to step around those who are caught up in that debate and mostly just ignore them because I don't imagine that they will reach an agreement anytime soon. (We came very close to reaching one and then they blew it up so I'm not getting caught in that trap again.)

--Richard 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really should try to follow your example, to be honest, although it seems the things I want to work on prevent that. I suppose I'll just have to try to stay away as best I can. I will say that I liked your compromise at the top of the page (at least, Fishhead64 said it was yours). Was that the one that got blown up? —Mi ra 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, the original proposal was from User:Vaquero100 and it was to re-organize the Roman Catholic Church article into a bunch of subsidiary articles titled Catholic Church and x. The problem arose when User:Fishhead64 objected to the use of "Catholic Church" instead of "Roman Catholic Church". I proposed that we title the articles Roman Catholic Church and X whereupon the opposing side blew up the compromise.

I think the original proposal from User:Vaquero100 is being implemented but User:Fishhead64 is trying to move the CC and x articles to RCC and x.

I would suggest that you go ahead and work on the articles using titles of the form CC and X and then let the others fight the battle over whether it should be CC and X or RCC and X. Focus on content and let somebody else waste their keystrokes debating the form of the title.

--Richard 04:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at this point, it's just the lack of consistency that annoys me. I almost wish there was a third option - it would make it easier to compromise. (Although now that I say that, that's probably not true...oh well.) —Mi ra 05:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Project Catholicism 101[edit]

Template:Project Catholicism 101 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I know that you have put a lot of work into this, but your personal rating system breaches NPOV and can be read as implying a Wikipedia rating of articles. As such it is unacceptable for use. The template has been proposed for deletion. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to advise me of the TfD nomination. As you can tell from my response on the deletion talk page, I obviously disagree. However, I do appreciate your taking the time to make sure I was aware of the debate so that I could weigh in with my opinion.

--Richard 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the "joke": the version I linked to contains a sentence which be interpreted to mean that an editor has to ask permission before editing the article. Not saying that it was meant that way, and the joke was more that if User:Peirigill thinks that the template as it stands claims ownership, then he'd really think the old version did. —Mi ra 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AZTEC makeover[edit]

Thanks Richard, I wasn't that sure whether the revised layout for WP:MESO made sense to anyone but me, so I'm glad to see you've been able to adapt it so readily for WP:AZTEC.

I'd be happy to help out refining the WP:AZTEC layout along those lines, particularly if there are bits whose function or meaning is unclear. It may be that some of the subpages/layout structure may prove to be overkill for WP:AZTEC -some bits I defined for WP:MESO are under-utilised there at the moment, and in all likelyhood may turn out to be not particularly useful. I tried not to over-engineer it but after using the layout for a little while now I'm starting to get a feel for which bits are handy, and which are not.

I'd thought of the Definitions mainpage as being mainly to introduce the project to prospective members and other interested parties, containing also some reference materials, and once set up it should remain reasonably stable. I think the way you've set it up for wp:aztec will do just fine.

For the Activities mainpage and subpages, I guess there are a couple of options for wp:aztec:

keep the more straightforward presentation as you've presently implemented it
use a similar layout to the WP:MESO/A equivalent, with each of the subpages being created separately and specifically for wp:aztec
use a similar layout to the WP:MESO/A equivalent, but some of the subpages can be 'shared' between wp:aztec and wp:meso; that is, display some of the currently-defined Activities subpages, such as the 'NewRequests' listing, at both Projects' mainpages.

Pros/Cons for these options would include:

Option #1 would perhaps be simplest to maintain, and cover only Aztec-specific materials, but would not be visible or easily cross-referenced to wp:meso activities (which currently also include Aztec-related articles as well)
Option #2 would require more work to create the new pages, set up the layout and maintain (but not insurmountable), cover only Aztec-specific materials, and again be independent of activities/developments at wp:meso
Option #3 would be less work to set up and maintain than option #2 (wouldn't need to create a bunch of new pages), would encourage re-use, collaboration and visibility between those interested in one or the other (overlapping) areas, but Aztec-related materials are presently not highlighted specifically, and wp:aztec may prefer their own organisation of these pages.

A similar set of options might apply for the "Catalogue" mainpage, but there you may like to restrict the catalogue to those of Aztec-interest only.

To my mind at least, it may make sense to share several of these subpages between the two projects (ie something like option #3). For example, wp:aztec could also use the various article worklists implemented for wp:meso, listing there those Aztec-articles needing particular stages of work among the other Meso ones (with perhaps a little identifier [A] or something next to them)- that way others can look to action these as well (and I've already added in the Top- and High-priority Aztec articles needing improvement).

Other subpages which could be shared (with some minor adjustments) between the two projects would be: The Tools/References page, the Monitoring page, the five article worklist pages WP:MESO/NEW, WP:MESO/EXP, WP:MESO/FIX, WP:MESO/IMP and WP:MESO/PREP, and the priority task page. Other possibilities would be the guidelines and notices.

However, you may think it better for wp:aztec to adopt its own approach for these. Let me know what you think. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request[edit]

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

Archiving talk page must have failed[edit]

Hi, I fixed the archiving you did for Hildanknight. It looks like the browser cut off the input mid sentence. You may want to double check large edits as there is a warning about Firefox and Google Toolbar which does this to people. Cheers, Ansell 09:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template stuff[edit]

Re: your comments about templates on Hildenknight's talk page. You are right that {{a template}} syntax does only display pages in the template: namespace. However other pages can be included in the same way too. You use the same syntax just add the relevant namespace to the front. Taking your example {{User:Hildanknight/Test template to do something wonderful}}. Note ther User: namespace tag tacked on to the start. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test - User:Richardshusr/Test template to do something wonderful

WP United States[edit]

Hi Richard. Apologies for the slight delay in getting back to you, I've been away these past few days.

Re the concept of re-using elements of the layout/structure of WP:MESO & WP:AZTEC for your proposed new WP:US project, that should be quite possible, although the scope and nature of WP:US might require some amendments to the structure. For WP:US it is quite likely that there will be scope for and interest in developing a sizeable number of sub-themes or 'task forces' in a variety of different areas, and indeed I think there are already a few WP's established which already cover a few of these (eg WP's for some U.S. states and cities). Given this, you might also like to consider a model offered by such as WP:MILHIST, which is organised into a number of different "task forces", each concentrating on some particular aspect.

However, there'd certainly be need for an overall coordinated approach, and some of the facilities offered by the MESO/AZTEC design could be useful for this. Perhaps the main benefit of this scheme is that it can present at a single view a summary of relevant information instead of having to flick between multiple subpages, and the summary does not need to be updated separately. Another benefit is that the code used to 'prettify' the presentation is safely tucked away where it does not crowd the editing window.

I think the default 'Definition' layout page for MESO/AZTEC could readily be adopted for WP:US, to give newcomers ready access to base information about the project, and that most if not all of that page's subpages would be relevant for an overall WP:US and any constituent 'task forces' which may be defined. It could serve more or less as the entry point to the project's activities, and should be reasonably easy to set up.

As for the 'Activity' and 'Catalogue' main page views, it would depend on how WP:US decides to function - whether as more-or-less discrete subprojects by topic connected by an overall US-level coordination and navigation, or whether starting out with the big-picture first and then refining into subproject areas ("bottom-up" vs "top-down"). If the former you might consider having Activity/Catalogue mainpages per subproject, which might be necessary anyway given there'd be literally at least tens of thousands of already existing US-related articles. If the latter, you might need to consider more closely just what sort of role the US-level WikiProject would play, given that there's a few active WikiProjects which (thematically at least) are wholly or mostly contained within WP:US overall scope.

Just a few discussion points for consideration. I'd be happy to help out on any design/structural points, where I can and time permitting. Regards,--cjllw | TALK 01:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of Mexico map in Aztec article nominated for Featured Picture[edit]

Richard, I self-nominated the Valley of Mexico map in the Aztec article for Featured Picture. You may vote on it &/or offer your comments here. All for now, Madman 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't bite back"[edit]

Look, I'm close to tears as it is, so please try not to jump on me. I am not a troll. Never have been, never will be. Hildanknight was rude to me, and I was rude back. Your comment hurt me more than you can ever know. --172.191.63.212 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comment hurt you. Referring to you as a troll may have been inappropriate although I was using "troll" in a more general way to characterize annoying editors. Perhaps you have a different definition that describes a person who is worse than just rude and uncivil. If so, I may have used the word "troll" inappropriately. I was just trying to express a concept which in Christian terms is called "turn the other cheek" or "it takes two to have a fight".

Moreover, the edit history on User talk:Hildanknight seems to point to incivility and harassment on your part. I haven't even been able to figure out what started it all.

The most recent comment on User talk:Hildanknight by User:Cowman109 seems to indicate that the two of you have talked and that hopefully this unpleasant incident can be closed. It is my earnest hope that this is the case.

--Richard 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for staying kind in your reply, but I'm afraid the tears have taken over. I lost to them. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:25 (UTC)

Oh, and the whole story is spelled out at the bottem of Cowman's page. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:26 (UTC)

OK, I've read the story that you left on Cowman109's page. It seems that you are both at fault. Hldanknight is wrong in his campaign against anon IP editors but you should realize that he has suffered from getting autoblocked as a result of vandals who share his IP. You both were unnecessarily rude to each other for reasons that still seem obscure to me.

My criticism of you was in response to his claim of having had his User Page vandalized. Those comments were made by me without knowing the whole history of the running dispute between the two of you. I repeat my apology for having suggested that you were a troll although my advice was not aimed at you specifically but misbehaving editors in general. I will say, in my defense, that I never called you a "moron".

I wish both of you good luck. Hildanknight is a good Wikipedian that sometimes gets too wrapped up in things that he cares about. I hope that both of you will figure a way to move past this mess and get on with productive editing.

--Richard 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never vandalized his userpage, which is why it hurt so much to hear it said.--172.195.164.54 22:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict and stress[edit]

I hope your conflicts and disagreements abate themselves in the near future. For the time being, sit back with some nice Esperanza coffee and relax. :) -- Nataly a 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File a mediation case here and I will try to help you. WP:MEDCAB Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August Esperanza Newsletter[edit]

Program Feature: To-Do List
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log)
In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed! The In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign.
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

First aid transwiki[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you transwikied the violating sections of the First aid article. Wilderness first aid also needs to be transwikied, I was wondering if you could assist me with it? I'm just not sure what to do... Thanks -- St.isaac 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start by consulting this link. Follow the directions, making sure to make an entry on the Transwiki log over at http://www.wikibooks.com. You will want to create a username at WikiBooks in order to do stuff over there.

I didn't finish the Transwiki because I discovered that there already is a Wikibook entry for First aid and the structure of the existing WikiBook doesn't match the structure of the stuff that I pulled out of Wikipedia. It will take me a little bit of time and negotiation to fit the Wikipedia "how to" stuff into the Wikibook entry on First aid.

Fortunately for you, this problem does not exist wrt "Wilderness first aid". However, there are two things you will want to do. First, you will want to restructure the Wilderness first aid article in Wikipedia into a Chapter-oriented structure (see the WikiBooks entry on First aid for a model). Second, you will want to go into the WikiBooks entry on First aid and change the link to Wikipedia's entry on Wilderness first aid in Chapter 12, Section 3 to the WikiBooks entry on Wilderness first aid that you are going to create.

Good luck and keep me posted on your progress.

--Richard 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for putting things in perspective again. --Joanne B 18:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism[edit]

Hi... I see you contributed a few thoughts to the colonialism page. I heartily agreed with you that it was too long - it mushroomed from [[3]], admittedly very short on information, into its current state today, when one (well-intentioned) user basically took it over and added tons of stuff to it, so much in fact that I felt a bit disheartened and stopped watching the page. When someone adds lots of superfluous stuff to an article, you get accused of vandalism if you then take a sledge hammer to it and try to make it more readable. (Many contributors think that a valid edit only involves a rewording, but if that was the case, then articles would grow in size indefinitely as each contributor added their favourite thought). Anyway, today I decided to take a sledgehammer to it (sure enough, I got accused of vandalism) but I hope it's starting to get to a more manageable size. I'd be interested to read your thoughts. Cheers. Gsd2000 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people)[edit]

This debate was moved from User_talk:JoanneB#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FWesties_.28people.29

The resurrected text from Easties (people) is published here: User:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --WikiCats 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this discussion on to User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --WikiCats 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution Richard and your kind offer. --WikiCats 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. Thank you for all help your resolving the NPOV issues. I certainly am not disheartened by the removal of Parochialism in Sydney. I don't expect to win debates in 5 days. Typically my debates last for months. There is a million things we can call the umbrella article. We just have to appease those who are sensitive. They should have deleted Westies when they had the chance, as I wanted. As long as Westies exists, something has to be done. I have kept the code from Parochialism in Sydney for reference.

I don't think that Culture of Sydney is suitable for this issue because of its upbeat nature. Put simply, it wouldn't be fair to impose these issues on such an article. I feel we should create something in the name-space so we can work on it. We can use mine. --WikiCats 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Masssiveego RFA requirements.[edit]

I'd have to say your pretty close to be a good admin. Keep it up! I suggest chatting around in IRC and getting to know people at the village pump, and little RC patrol would be nice.

There are two kinds of templates just the warning and the -n variation. The -n basically tells the user what are they getting the warning for. If I just see a warning template, with no infomation or attempts to help the other user figure what they did wrong. I consider bad form because it often leaves the other user confused and annoyed, often not knowning why they had the warning template in the first place. If they are not familiar with the user talk system, it only adds more irratation, as some people do find problems programming their VCRS, much less operating a computer. I see some warnings are necessary in certain cases, so taking a few moments to explain the warnings with at least the title of the article for which the warning was given would allow the other user a chance to change their habits.

Tutoring. I find it even better if the warning was given with better instructions or links to what would better resolve their problem. Such as adding links for mediation, or edit coaching for some people.

--Masssiveego 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

You indicated on my RfA that you thought I didn't need the admin tools to run OrphanBot. I've expanded my answer to question 1 to explain what I can't do without the tools. Could you reconsider your vote? --Carnildo 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo.[edit]

Kindly disregard my suggestion in your e-mail box. I see you've already joined us. Welcome aboard. CQJ 06:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Steinbach[edit]

Please read the talk page before reverting. The birthplace is important because of her being the head of the Vertriebenenbund. That means that for some people (Poles, mostly, but not only them) she is an expeller first and an expelled person second only. Note that Germany has officially recognized the annexation as illegal, so legally today we have to say that she was born in Poland. And TINC, I do not consider myself Polish. Have a nice day.--Pan Gerwazy 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the debate. The Talk Page is on my watchlist. All arguments for Rumia and Rahmel need to stay out of the introduction. It is too long a discussion to put there. I am OK with Rumia (then Rahmel) or Rahmel (now Rumia) but that's it. Any explanation of the legal status then and now belongs in the Rumia article not in the Erika Steinbach article.

--Richard 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church[edit]

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. Thanks for your message. To tell the truth I don't know how I managed to message Esperanza. Thank you for what you did.

I intend to return to the Sydney NPOV issue when there is a resolution to this matter. --WikiCats 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Marvin Heemeyer[edit]

Please dont change the Marvin Heemeyer article without going to the talk. The article is fine the way it is, and your new edit doesn's flow well.

Your reversion[edit]

Hi there, You seem to have a problem with my deletion of comments on WT:RFA. I thought, in the interests of transparency, I'd let you know why I removed them. They have nothing to do with RfA itself, and are simply whining/trolling, in my opinion. Stating on the WT:RFA page that it's been a "bad day for Wikipedia" is unhelpful, and not useful. I believe the comments were better suited to another page. I won't revert you, but I'd like to urge you to reconsider your reversion. Thanks, — Werdna talk criticism 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your courtesy in discussing this via Talk rather than via edit war and thanks for not reverting my revert of your revert. I understand your position. However, there has been a lot of whining, bitching and moaning on that page in the last couple of days. Those comments were mild compared to some of the hyperbole and invective that has been thrown around on that page by others. If you take those out, you'll have to take a lot more out also to be consistent. I would advise that you let people vent their feelings. At the end of the day, what's done is done and it won't be rescinded unless Carnildo does something stupid which I doubt he will. Most people will get over it and some people will bear a grudge and keep bringing this up at every opportunity. Suppression won't help. Just ignore it and hopefully the anger and discontent will die down.

--Richard 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. I suppose it may be best to, as you mentioned, just let it stay there and be archived at some stage. As for discussing it with talk rather than editwarring, it's a sad day indeed where this is a big deal — it should be what happens anyway. Take care, — Werdna talk criticism 08:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support these posts (without saying anything about their subject or content) and I am utterly astonished that Werdna deleted them. We don't need such inflammatory actions on talk pages suppressing the expression of user's feelings. No censorship on talk pages please. Well done having reverted this. I would have reverted myself. I wonder if not this deletion itself confirmed what was expressed in these post. Which would indeed be "unhelpful, and not useful". --Ligulem 08:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inca Empire Vandalism[edit]

Got a message from you saying that your Inca page was vandalised by me (or my IP address). I don't know how this happened, I haven't seen or read your Inca page until now. I saw the edit (something like "fuck you Wikipedia") and can assure you that it was not done by me on my computer, can IP addresses get hijacked? good luck with your pages, cheers.

Reconstruction and the Changing South[edit]

First of all, the pages was not even merged. Second there was no concensus has to be by 75% majority.

Diocesan Infobox[edit]

To the WikiProject Catholicism members

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Removal of useless talk[edit]

The TPG specifically state the purpose of a talk page, so anything that doesn't fulfil that is a violation which can be removed. Tyrenius 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Blanking of talk pages[edit]

Thanks for your input. A review of Wikipedia policy will show that there is no endorsment of blanking of any material with the possible exception of the removal of personal attacks by the author himself in a very limited scope. There are both refactoring and archiving available to deal with superfluous entires on talk pages. Additional links and commentary are available on Kim's talk page. Cheers. NeoFreak 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite wrong. Blatant misuse of article talk pages amounts to vandalism, and a warning should be given, followed by a block. See TPG talk Tyrenius

Hi, I appreciate your involvement in this debate. However, I would ask that you not conduct the debate here on my Talk Page. First, it clutters up my Talk Page but, more importantly, I would like a wider audience to read your arguments so that we can help develop a consensus around my proposed change to [[WP:TPG}the talk page guidelines]]. Please post further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

--Richard 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why?[edit]

you not only reverted the stuff we are arguing over, but also my spelling and grammar corrections, i.e. expelees--->expellees

--Jadger 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Now you know what it feels like. I'm sorry for that. I didn't see the spelling and grammar corrections in the diff. Maybe I wasn't looking closely enough.

Let's all resolve to edit forward rather than revert as reversion is disruptive. I also intend to try to recap this dispute in an attempt to find some resolution. The back-and-forth edit war is disruptive and an incredible waste of time. I'll try to find some time to do this in the next few days.

--Richard 03:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Mug[edit]

Hi, I blocked User:Travel Mug as a "vandalism-only account". If a user registers and uses their account primarily for vandalism, their account can be blocked indefinitely. However, IP addresses cannot be blocked indefinitely (unless they belong to an open proxy), as such a block would incur a lot of collateral damage. I hope this answers your questions. Good luck with your RFA! Cheers, Tangot a ngo 07:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

talk:Erika Steinbach[edit]

Although not meaning to, you have helped stir up quite a brew-haha on Erika Steinbach talk page. I ask you to close your current poll and declare it "inconsequential" so that a more neutral vote can be staged. Balcer keeps removing the more neutral vote because he says you must close your own poll first. the new vote is here now (Balcer kept removing my edits so I had admin help me) as you can see, the new one presents both sides, and if you look at your proposal, all the votes supporting it were posted before anyone posted any counter-points to your version. Not to mention that your poll has been degraded into a flaming war of personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry, defamations of characters, and people deleting other's edits. Your vote has become polluted to say the least, and although started with the best of intentions, it is time it should be ended.

--Jadger 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September Esperanza Newsletter[edit]

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

User:AlphaChimp and User:Cyde[edit]

If you are Buttinsky then I am Buttinsky-squared, but I wanted to compliment you for your intervention on Cyde's talk page. I had come to that page to post about something else and wound up following that dialog like a car accident, thinking I shouldn't be looking but unable to turn away, and I was just at the point of asking them why two respected admins were interacting in that manner (not for the first time, either) when you beat me to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BobbyLee's RFA[edit]

May I ask why you deleted my RFA? BobbyLee 05:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you certainly deserve an explanation. I was composing it when your message came in. Please wait a few minutes and I will post it to your Talk Page. In the meantime, read WP:SNOW for a high-level explanation. Details to follow.

--Richard 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a doubt that it would eventually get SNOWed. – Ch acor 06:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait, to be fair. Nothing's stopping people from supporting, after all. – Ch acor 06:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 220.246.167.18[edit]

I have unblocked this user and removed semi-protection from the article. The 24 hour is indeed way too long for someone who hasn't even been notified of the rule. Thanks for pointing this out to me! It was actually reported to me on IRC as vandalism and much exagerated words by User:Hildanknight as I was already swamped in working in the middle of a couple of backlogs. His requests sounded desperate and I trusted Hildanknight's judgement a bit too much there.--Konstable 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. I found out about this because Hildanknight's Talk Page is on my watchlist. He's an earnest, intelligent 14-year old who, unfortunately, has developed an animus towards anon IP's. Sometimes, he's a bit too rabid about them. I'm sure he'll mature in time. --Richard 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Babychum[edit]

No, I didn't use checkuser, which I don't have access to anyway. I just looked at Babychums contributions. I saw that he had "contributed" to the Infant and Snowboarding articles. In the Infant article, there were a couple of other redlinked contributers. I checked their contributions. One of them, Snowboardf, had also vandalized at the Infant and Snowboarding articles. Since I knew that Babychum had, or had least claimed to have, puppets, putting two and two together and figured that Snowboardf and Babychum where the same person. I don't know this for a stone fact, but it's very unlikely that two unconnected people would chose to vandalize two such different articles by coincidence.

As far as I know, a lot of the uncovering of sockpuppets is done with detective work like this. A checkuser request can be made as a confirmation if necessary. Often it's not as the puppet can be blocked for its own vandalism. Of course, a vandal could easily avoid detection of his puppets by taking care to choose different articles and different styles of vandalism, but they usually don't, because they're stupid and lazy and/or they have particular articles they want to attack and/or they have identifiable personal styles.

As to whether this whole thing was handled in a standard way, that is, with three different admins etc., I don't know. I'm pretty new myself and mostly confine myself to closing AfDs and stuff; I have very little experience in antivandalism and such. I don't think its very unusual, though.

As to what more you could have done, anyone can do the detective work outlined above, and anyone can put up sockpuppet tags and warning messages - you just can't do the actual blocks, for that you have to ANI or AIV. Before I was an admin I followed around one very prolific puppet / dynamic IP vandal and reverted all his edits and tagged his puppets. It was easy because he always went to the same articles and had an easily idenifiable writing style. With others, you have to make your best guess, which I suppose is why the basic sockpuppet tag says "suspected"

Cheers and good luck with your future RfA, holler if you have any more questions. Herostratus 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block notices[edit]

Yes, it is generally expected that blocked users get blocked notices onn their talk pages, unless they are obvious vandalism accounts. I really should have put block notices on Babychum's user talk page, but unfortunately I got sidetracked. You can definitely put blocked notices on people's talk page as a non-admin as long as you are sure if the user is actually blocked, by checking on the block log. By the way, you should probably archive your talk page. Hope that helps. Academic Challenger 21:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Prussian education system/Sandbox[edit]

Hello ! Could you move Prussian education system/Sandbox to either Talk space (i.e. Talk:Prussian education system/Sandbox) or to user space (i.e. User:Richardshusr/Prussian education system) ? According to Wikipedia:Subpages, sandboxes shouldn't be created in mainspace, also if the material is a copyvio it will be indexed by Google which is not a Good Thing. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian[edit]

This is to inform you that the project page you created above is currently being considered for deletion. You can follow the link at the page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 00:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prussian education system/Sandbox[edit]

If the content of that page is a copyvio, it does not belong in talk space, but should be deleted. Any modification of the text will be a derived work and still a copyvio. Or is there something I am overlooking? Kusma (討論) 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Hi Richard. Nice to see you back. I've left a few notes for you at the Admin Coaching page. -- Szvest 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

GUS and SUS[edit]

Hi,

Hahaha! :) German Userbox Solution, so called because we adopted it from German Wikipedia, is what we have now -- Userboxes in userspace, except for Babel boxes and some project boxes in template-space. Simple Userbox Solution, keeping all userboxes in template-space, is a rejected proposal that represents the way life was before userbox reform and the contention it wrought.

I restored the SUS box sometime ago in response to a deletion review request. It lives here: User:Xoloz/UBX/User SUS. Note that I don't endorse the SUS; I've just made my userspace home to any "sanity-compatible" userbox, (ie anything not promoting illegal activity, promoting Wiki-blockable activity, or qualifying as gibberish/nonsense) in the interest of diffusing userbox tensions. My userpage offers my view of the conflict in general in more detail. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in India[edit]

Well don't go away yet. If you have good sources to attest to the controversy then please put them in. You've got me intrested and I'd like to present as much reliable information regarding this issue from all sides of the debate. IF you find anything else then I'd be grateful if you could send me a holler and we can talk in the talk page.Hkelkar 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more stuff to the article to balance out the controversies section somewhat. Could you please peruse it and see if everything is OK?Hkelkar 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your automatic reverts[edit]

Hi. Please stop doing that. If it's automatic and you're running without a flagged bot, stop immediately. If you're accidentally accepting edits from a semi-automatic system, and have twice had to revert completely harmless edits on my talk page by me, you're not paying enough attention. Take my talk page off your list. I can handle any problematic edits myself. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize. It's not an automatic bot and I'm not trying to revert "problematic edits". I've got some Javascript (probably from Lupin) that puts "Rollback (AGF)" and "Rollback (Vandal)" immediately above "Current revision". If my mouse is a little too high up when I click on "Current revision", I get the unintended "Rollback (AGF)". I'll try to be more careful in the future.

--Richard 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it turns out that the problem is not just plain bad mouse clicking (as in lack of attention). It turns out that part of the problem is that my mouse hand is faster than my slow computer. The browser is slow in processing the Javascript and so it puts up "Current revision" first and then says "Oh, I have to put these "Rollback" things above the "Current revision" thing so it moves the "Current revision" thing down to make room for the "Rollback" things. Unfortunately, if I click on the "Current revision" before the browser finishes processing the Javascript for the "Rollback" things, my mouse click winds up landing on the "Rollback" things instead of on the "Current revision" thing which has now been moved down lower than where I saw it when I made my click. The solution is for me to wait until the Javascript has been processed before I click on anything.

This problem is aggravated by the fact that I have different speed computers and the problem doesn't show up all the time. Mostly it happens on this slow computer that I'm using right now.

--Richard 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvowelling[edit]

Hi. Your recent edit to Disemvoweling is fine with me, but I just want to give you a head's up that others may object to it. The story behind that is long, sad and complicated, but the short version is that a few of the article's editors barely acknowledge the existence of the forum moderation technique, and think the article should mostly just show the "splat out" (ex. tr*lls) and possibly hyphenation (G-d) usages, because they are easier to source. Your edit quickly switches the focus to the more current (and I think more important) usage, the moderation technique, which has generated controversies of its own in the history of this article. A very long, heated wrangle finally ended with a consensus text about a month ago, followed by a further edit to acknowledge the special usage for avoiding spelling out the name of the Deity. Your edit is likely to reopen debate, or possibly just get reverted. Thanks for trying in good faith to improve the article, though. Unfortunately, doing so is harder than it looks! Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. I don't think my edit is controversial because I didn't change the content, just the order in which it was presented (keeping the two forum moderator ideas together and separating the forum moderator idea from the example of what the first sentence looks like when disemvowelled). We'll see if anybody objects to that. --Richard 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD[edit]

I've speedy closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian and userfied the page to your subpage at: User:Richardshusr/WikiProject Pre-Columbian. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of the Catholic Resistance[edit]

I note that you have previously edited the project page above. I also noted that it currently has no members. This is unfortunate, because any project with no members is technically eligible for deletion. I think you might want to consider adding your name to the new membership list. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AFD[edit]

If you withdraw a nomination for an article when you have already created the AFD discussion page you should leave it in the AFD day log - that way it can easily be spotted and closed. If you remove it from the log it ends up in limbo as no other pages link to it. I closed the school one, so no need to put that back in. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for the note, Richard – reread the article and have struck my !vote accordingly. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 08:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piet[edit]

Thanks for the hint ;-) I actually read the article a while ago, it's an interesting concept and I'd say keep (even without the name) but I decided not to vote, they might say I'm prejudiced... Piet | Talk 07:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Lords Reform[edit]

Richardshusr, your offer of help would be much appreciated. But let me give you a bit of history. I helped with a campaign on Lords reform. In the course of that I did quite a bit of research into the subject. With Lords reform about to come back on the agenda, I was searching the internet to see whether there was any news and I found a very old and not very good wikipedia entry.

Now since Lords Reform will be back on the agenda about 16th November I thought that if no one else was going to work on the entry, then I should. Unfortunately, I've never written a successful wikipedia article and unfortunately, I started work by simply cutting and pasting a load of information that I had easily to hand (which was obviously very political) and only then did I start going through the government documents. (enough said...)

I'm hoping to get a fair history of Lords reform to date and a summary of the public debate together with an "overview" of the many options.

I have big problems:

I'm not at all familiar with the wikipedia style
I'm not used to writing about Lords reform in a neutral style
The issue is contentious

I have big advantages:

I know quite a lot about the subject (although I'm no expert)
I'm not particularly in favour of any of the main options so I can write about them fairly neutrally.

At the moment I'm in the process of reading the various reports (white paper) and pasting facts and quotes into the various documents. If you go to User:LordsReform, I've laid out a rough idea of the various documents.

How you can help:

My biggest worry is not finding the information, or even writing about it "neutrally", but simply knowing what "Needs editing" (or whatever the notice) means that is really where you can help me
Help deal with the deletion notice.
Add your name to User:LordsReform with some comment (so others working on it know whot to contact, for what)
Look at the whole project in a dispassionate way and tell us what is wrong (on the discussions)
Look at Lords reform and improve the style, layout, referencing, and tell us the answer to the questions I don't even know I need to ask
Tell us how to wikify it.
Wikify it

Mike 09:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, thanks for your help on Lords Reform. The edits are getting smaller and smaller, I've even begun to delete things, it is a sure sign that its nearing completion. BUT ... It may have been accepted by Wikipedia, but now it faces a much more hostile reception as the various camps discover it! --Mike 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

im new so i thought i might as well make a friend[edit]

hi how you doing my names william taylor boyd II i live in england but by blood im irish. Triple entente 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC) triple entente[reply]

History of Liberia[edit]

Wow! I've added a little to the article in the past, but was also aware how much was missing. You have obviously done a lot of research. Good work! -- Donald Albury 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

fz2's edits to Demographic history of Vojvodina[edit]

Double standard still rules? What do you think about the pig-headed Pannonian? Every comments comming outside from his own world is proclaimed as nationalistic propaganda, hungarian irredentism?! Regards --fz22 11:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

expulsions[edit]

I have removed myself from wikipedia for the time being, in order to avoid such horrible cyclical arguments centred mainly on the nationalist tendencies of a select number of users. However, I will say that Lysy's idea to separate the article into two entitled 'Evacuation and flight' and 'Expulsions' is rather nonsensical. This is an encyclopedia, and is meant to be easily readable and searchable for the user. two separate articles are not needed, I think that subsections in the article may be warranted to clarify the matter, but separating the article in two is illogical. those people that "evacuated" separate from those "expelled" when those evacuating left for the same reason, their safety and well-being. Although I did not read the whole discussion, it seems Lysy may be trying to portray those who left before the Red Army arrived as giving up their land free-willingly. those that left "free-willingly" being less-entitled to claim the lands back, as this idea has been discussed many times.

--Jadger 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your anti-ageist support in my RfA last month. :) In a few months after I graduate I think I'll be able to come back and try again later, and hopefully win it. I'll be sure to be involved in MfD, AfD. Perhaps I should make my responses more serious, instead of casual and conversational. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me based on what you remember? Thanks again, X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 06:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Forget to sign?[edit]

[4] Giano 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Semi-colon is your friend[edit]

The semi-colon is quite useful when connecting related thoughts; without its use, prose often becomes short, choppy, and unnatural sounding. An example from the article:

The actual cost to the consumer is miniscule. In 1975 the cost per item for obtaining kosher certification was estimated by The New York Times as being 6.5 millionths (0.0000065) of a cent per item for a typical product.

reads better as

The actual cost to the consumer is miniscule; in 1975 the cost per item for obtaining kosher certification was estimated by The New York Times as being 6.5 millionths (0.0000065) of a cent per item for a typical product.

The second half of the sentence is an elaboration on the first, and helps explain it. These are not two separate concepts, but one related one.

Similarly, an example from your own writing:

"I am not a fan of the semicolon in prose. I usually am happier to just put a period there and create two sentences."

reads better as

"I am not a fan of the semicolon in prose; I usually am happier to just put a period there and create two sentences."

The second half of the sentence elaborates on the first. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Merging Occupation of Izmir into Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)[edit]

Hi Richard, thanks for notifying me. You have a point. I'll change my vote. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, in the afd you state "It appears that the occupation of Smyrna/Izmir was not just a single event in the war but rather the major focal event of the war. If this is not true, I would reconsider my position."

The Occupation of Izmir was only one part of the war. It can be broken down in the occupation of Izmir, First Battle of İnönü, Second Battle of İnönü, Battle of Sakarya, and the Battle of Dumlupınar, and finally the Great Fire of Smyrna. These are all significant stages of the Greco-Turkish war. The current level of content should not detract from the fact that it is a notable part of the war which deserves its own article. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of what i have said, do you still believe merge and redirect is the most suitable and consistent option? --A.Garnet 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think it could go either way. I am comfortable with the merge it all into one big article approach (i.e. all the articles not just the Occupation of Izmir but also all the articles on the other battles. This is a close call. I think the articles on the battles are just barely at the level where they could warrant an article unto themselves. What's needed is an expansion of all the articles. I just don't know enough to be able to tell whether there is more that can be written about these articles.

--Richard 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archbishop vs. Metropolitan[edit]

Hi. Hehe... Metropolitan is the high ranked religious leader of a small/average community (numerically talking) or of a small area (e.g. Metropolitan of Chania). It is a title equivelent to 'bishop' (in Greek, the words 'μητροπολίτης' (metropolitan) and 'επίσκοπος' (bishop) are used interchangeably). Archbishop is the high ranked religious official of a large area and a populus community (e.g. Archibishop of Athens and of All Greece, Archibishop of Cyprus, Archibishop of Crete). There is also one Archibishop without faithful, but only monks (Archibishop of Sina, Saint Catherine Monastery, for historical reasons). Archibishops are also bishops (bishop of Athens and archibishop of Greece, for example). In addition, Patriarchs (the highest title in the Orthodox church) are also bishops and archibishops (e.g. the full title of the Ecumenical Patriarch (first among equals for the Orthodox) is His All Divine Hollyness, the Bishop of Byzantium, Archibishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. So, Chrysostomos of Smyrna was Metropolitan, having juristriction only over the faithful of Smyrni and its area. But this is evident that his importance was great, having in mind the population of his 'ποίμνιο' (faithful), just as Metropolitan of Thessaloniki today, is equal, but de facto more important than, e.g. Chios. Hope this was enlightening;-). Regards Hectorian 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from RfAr/Giano/Proposed decision talk[edit]

Let me see if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that, because ArbCom determined as part of "fact finding" that Carnildo was resysopped outside of consensus, that they are basically saying that Taxman et al. were wrong to re-promote Carnildo but that, rather than directly rebuking or censuring the b'crats, they effectively said "since the end-result of resysopping Carnildo is what we wanted anyway, we will ratify the action of the b'crats by making it an ArbCom decision as well"? Thus, the ramification of the ArbCom decision will be that, in the future, out of consensus resysopping will likely be done by ArbCom rather than by the b'crats? If I have read you right and the preceding paragraph is on the mark, then I am very satisfied with this result. Somewhere among the megabytes of postings on Carnildo's RFA, I said that this is what ArbCom should do. And, I think some other people said the same thing. ArbCom desysopped Carnildo. If they felt that he should be resysopped despite the lack of consensus, they had and have the power to re-open the case and just resysop him. All the big hooha about "RFA is not a vote" could have been avoided if they had done so. If ever we get this kind of unusual situation again, hopefully things will be done in a smoother way so we can all spend less time, energy and heartache on process and focus on product instead. Which is what? Oh yeah, I think we were working on an encyclopedia or sumthin'. --Richard 01:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In substance, I think you are reading it right. It's actually a little complicated because the final decision isn't exactly what was proposed. In his initial draft of the /Proposed Decision, Fred Bauder proposed that the ArbCom find that "there was a failure to reach consensus" on Carnildo's RfA and describe the basis Taxman gave for closing it favorably with the two-month probation. These both passed unanimously, 5-0. Then Fred Bauder proposed under the remedies section that the ArbCom itself restore Carnildo's admin status based on continuing jurisdiction over the earlier case in which he was desysopped. This didn't pass; most of the arbitrators said that they would prefer to deal with this in November when Carnildo's adminship was to come up for review anyway (he's done fine as an admin this go-round; everyone knows he's going to be confirmed). No alternative remedy was proposed by another arbitrator to replace Fred's.

As a practical matter, I take this as a recognition that Taxman et al. conferred temporary adminship without discussion of exactly what the policy basis was for their doing so. A couple of the commenters have noted the lacuna but given that the two-month "probationary adminship" ends in a couple of weeks no one's made an issue of it. Fred Bauder also proposed to hold that "in some instances, it is better for requests for restoration of administrative status to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee." That didn't pass either: one vote yes, one vote no, one abstention, and three of the arbitrators ignored it altogether. Nonetheless, I think that's the de facto outcome of the decision, and one that I am quite able to live with.

More discussion from me on a related issue today on John Reid's talk, if anyone really can stand more of this. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I'm not at all happy with it. What it does is set ArbCom up as an executive in administrative rights granting. Although this particular instance is very heavily licensed, I am relieved to see that "discretion promotion" got mooted for the beaurocrats even as I'm worried that "discretion promotion" got handed to ArbCom. I.e. if ArbCom were to change its minds about a prior remedy (demotion), that's one thing, but if it requires re-RFA and then changes its mind only when that fails, it seems to be undercutting itself rather than reconsidering itself. As a stop gap alone, I support it this time. It quiets the tribes and takes the very nasty "discretion" away from common bureaucratic practice. As a practice, I find it intolerable. Either they shouldn't demote except temporarily, shouldn't change their minds without a formal request from the demoted party, or should stick with community assessment. Any of those three would be ok, but demoting permanently (as Fred wanted to do with me), sending them out to RFA, and then changing their ruling without a single word of appeal from the demoted person was very black magic. Again, I can live with it this time as a remedy to an even worse thing done by the beaurocrats, but not if it's anything like a normal way of going about things. Geogre 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are well-taken, although candidly, Geogre, I've never thought that sysoppings-without-consensus are as big a problem as you and some of the other commenters in this situation portray. I'm still newish, but how many RfA's have there ever been with a truly contentious close? - maybe a dozen? I think the idea of banning a user for a week for going a bit overboard on a noticeboard during a contentious time was the much more troublesome precedent that has now been successfully avoided. Anyway, for what it's worth, you can be comforted that contrary to popular belief (and my summary description at the time), Fred Bauder never proposed that you be de-sysopped: merely that your "administrative privileges [be] suspended indefinitely" unless and until ArbCom restored them. Be comforted that your sysophood was confirmed by a 4-1 vote of the arbitrators and a 32-0 snowball talkpage consensus of what John Reid now calls "the peanut gallery." Newyorkbrad 02:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't worried about my administrative status at any point, really, but promotion without consensus has never occurred before, and it can't start now. The excessive slaps on users from ArbCom are long, long practice, depending on how you view a particular user, as well as inadequate slaps. That's much more a matter of human frailty and remediable mistakes (through requests for clarification). There is a vast amount at stake with AC getting involved in who is promoted and who is demoted without consensus. The biggest thing is that it allows for a very small group to have say, and it's always easier for a small group to go off the rails than a larger group. Given that the attacks on Wikipedia (other than content) are that there are political/religious/age /interest group of users who try to run things according to agreement. If we allow a group of ten to ignore the group of 200, or even seem like they can, then we are feeding the trolls, if not actually making them right. I.e. a wise and impartial group of arbitrators acting even once will enable all the arguments of "cabals," and, even if they never promote friends and demote dissenters, they seem like they do. We get far more peace by having fewer admins and greater transparency than "doing what's right" and getting more admins against the wishes of the large group. (If you've never seen the two anti-Wikipedia projects, all they ever talk about is caballism, etc.) Geogre 12:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some good observations there, I think. I've said more than enough on this, and Richard may want his page back, so let's leave it there for now. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why every school district?[edit]

"I disagree with this drive since most of the articles are almost free of content. Nonetheless, this is a debate that needs to be conducted on a higher level, not school district by school district."

A school district is a form of local government just like a municipality (esp. if the district is not controlled by the county or municipality) WhisperToMe 08:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. --Richard 08:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway's RfA[edit]

Thanks for trying to fight my corner, I guess there is no such thing as good faith in RfA. H ig hway ^{Ringo Starr!} 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November Esperanza Newsletter[edit]

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Here ya go[edit]

User:Richardshusr/Clergy abuse - crz crztalk 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support![edit]

Se la face ay pale, la cause est...

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

Occupation of Izmir[edit]

Hi, saw your edit there, but it's not really copyediting per se. A useful edit nonetheless. --AW 16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably your point is that my "copyediting" was really more properly characterized "cleanup of POV" text. I agree that I could have used that as an edit summary instead. I'll try not to slough off as "copyediting" more substantive editing of meaning. Thanks for your note. --Richard 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

You are right about Mexico[edit]

Oh yes, you are totally correct about Mexico. All Hispanics leaving Latin America to the freedom and prosperity of the United States (and possibly the newest member of Latin American in time), certainly prefer how the U.S. deals with anything as opposed to what they left. No Hispanic would ever want their new home to become Mexico again unless there was a complete 180° in both countries (which is not going to happen, in my opinion).

I know in Canada, Quebecois [French majority in the province of Quebec, though there are some french people outside of Quebec, their numbers are minority in most areas except 2 spots] had it quite good (disproportionate influence in the federal government), but they still almost wanted to separate (I doubt to join France, but France does currently exist right off the east coast of North America [slightly south of Newfoundland there are 2 little islands]). Nonprof. Frinkus 20:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've added a small comment re the Mexican analogy at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I must say I despair of getting certain people to ever agree to a straightforward, unified presentation of the topic. Of course Jadger is right that the whole process of German flight and expulsion (Flucht und Vertreibung) was one single phenomenon — set in motion by Hitler's savage war but implemented in revenge by the Soviets.

I am usually careful by "who started what" (Hitler setting things in motion), because arguably it was set in motion by Britain and France after the WWI (their "genocidal" blockade after hostilities stopped, and the crap they came up with following), or can I set it in motion by Germany's excursion through of Belgium in 1914, or the "act of war" of Russia's massive army prior to that, or the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, or France when …, to the point 4.5 billion years ago the planet Earth was forged out of a ball of molten rock. My stupid opinion here is — responsibility is best left to all and namely the last. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm highly skeptical about the current Wiki version of the Nemmersdorf massacre. The indiscriminate slaughter of the Germans of Nemmersdorf in October 1944 is attested to by eyewitness reports collected in Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe, edited by Theodor Schieder, and affirmed by no less liberal personage than Marion Dönhoff, long publisher of Die Zeit and herself a native of East Prussia.

Sca 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never head of the Nemmersdorf massacre myself (shows what I know ;-) ) prior to you mentioning it. I will see if I can find some good neutral sources (my research does take a long time … I like attempting to be thorough). I generally believe the victims, because of examples such as I once heard family of Jewish victims of the Holocaust attempted to obtain their stolen assets to survive they were turned down because death camps did not produce death certificates (when in my opinion how could a Swiss banker re-victimize someone like that). Nonprof. Frinkus 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard for adminship?[edit]

Richard, I have seen several of your posts concerning your plans to run for adminship. Would you like to give me the honour of nominating you? If so, please tell me approximately when you are ready, so I can use my writing skills to prepare a stellar nomination statement. You may wish to undergo an Wikipedia:editor review first? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am planning to request an editor review in the next few weeks. I'm still prepping for it. At the pace I'm going, it will be next year until I submit my RFA. I am grateful that you offer to nominate me although I think, out of courtesy, I should ask User:FayssalF to be the lead nominator since he is my adminship coach. User:JoanneB has also offered to nominate me. There are, apparently, a few RFA voters that frown on excessive co-noms. I personally think this is a silly reason to object to an RFA candidate but people have the right to their own opinions and standards. --Richard 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI[edit]

Hi, how are you doing? could you check the user supaman89?, he is doing a lot of weird stuffs in mexico article, just check the discusion page, he is pretty racist and i even thinking that he is a WN, i dont know, maybe you should check because that guy is anoying, and is trying to change facts about mexico like: "whites are 15% of population, etc." thanks.

--Mexxxicano

I have looked over Supaman89's edits briefly. Some of them I do NOT like (e.g. the picture of the tequila barrel). On the other hand, some of the edits don't seem to be that objectionable. I will try to take a closer look but I think the best course of action is to try and engage him in discussion about the edits rather than just edit warring. --Richard 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup boys, how you doin', it's me Supaman89, first of all most of the times I edit something I talk it over at the discussion page, except when they are very simple changes.

Why would you think I'm a racist?, just so you know I didn't write that white Mexicans are the 15%, so don't blame me for that, and as I've explained many times before, what makes you think that I'm doing any kind of prejudice against Amerindians? just because I changed that picture and put the one with the Mestizo and the Caucasians, which we all agreed that was more appropriate.

And the other picture of the barrel, I mean c'mon that picture that was before was of a girl dancing a traditional dance from Guadalajara, not the whole country, if you ask a guy from... Monterrey or Cancun or anywhere else, they would tell you: "Nah, we don't do that kinda stuff over here" but instead what can be more representative than barrels of tequila which is like a second word to describe Mexico.

A long-overdue Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar from Hildanknight[edit]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for patiently, tirelessly and consistently offering me assistance, support and mentorship! For that, I award you a long-long-long-long-long-overdue Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar! J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

Hummmm... This doesn't sound healthy.

An in-person meeting could help smooth over past differences and disputes (or it might not).

I would suggest that you drop Chacor a message and ask if there's a way the two of you can "bury the hatchet". I haven't seen any evidence of a real reason for the two of you to be at odds with each other. You don't have to become best friends but it should be possible for the two of you to be in the same room with each other without friction or conflict. What did he do to you that was so injurious? Feel free to provide diffs here or on my Talk Page.

I actually had no idea that Chacor resided in Singapore until I read the above.

--Richard 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably looking for Hildanknight's block log. As far as I know, that is why he's never liked me, for the mere reason I blocked him 24 hours in June for WP:POINT. – Ch acor 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsions[edit]

I've replied to your question at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. If you'd like a (digital) copy of my paper, send me an email — my address is on my user page. Sca 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec society[edit]

Gidday Richard, I note that you've swapped some text about between Aztec society and Daily life in the Aztec Empire articles. I think it's fine to rationalise the arrangement on these topics, however I have some reservations about the latter of these two articles. It was one of a brace of Aztec and Maya articles (see for eg Mayan Trade, Mayan food) all created around the same time in September by about 4 or 5 first-time editors, and they all have the hallmark of coming from some more extensive essay on the subject area. I'm not saying that there's copyvio involved here, my guess would be that it's almost like some joint class assignment has been broken up into separate articles. They are based on reasonable material, but they contain a number of evident misinterpretations and have more of a school essay feel to them. They need considerable work and rearranging, and in some instances I really wonder whether it is worth the effort as they cut across topics already covered in the main Aztec/Maya articles.

Just so as you know and something to bear in mind if distributing their contents across other articles. The images which came with the Daily Life article are also I believe mis-tagged as the contributor's own work, when clearly they seem to be taken from elsewhere. Anyways, keep up the good work, and cheers --cjllw | TALK 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads up". I did have my reservations about the Daily life in the Aztec Empire article. I hadn't seen it before and things seemed to be quite a mess between the two articles. I think the idea of having the two articles is worthwhile (i.e. one about Aztec social structure and the other about daily life). However, I agree that some of the content in the current "Daily life..." article seems a bit suspect. I will re-evaluate that article in the light of your comments. I would appreciate any suggestions that you may have for going forward. --Richard 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. questions[edit]

~~I'm not willing to continually be defamed by a certain someone. It's frustrating.~~ And yes, an RSMC is a Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (notice the American/British mix, that's apparently what WMO uses). – Ch acor 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw Hildanknight's talk page. Thanks for your post, it's helped. – Ch acor 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith[edit]

Not going into content issues, I would like to congratulate you for what I see as exceptional good faith from you. I was impressed with your line of thought. Amoruso 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA[edit]

Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel ^Talk 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar[edit]

Thank you, sir, for the recent Barnstar. It has actually encouraged me to get back into the editing business (I'll have to fill you in, over a pint perhaps, concerning my lost months). I did a few minor clean-up edits today and hope, in the coming days, to find a quiet corner to actually add some content. Perhaps we should try to take Aztec to Featured Article status?? Appreciatively yours, Madman 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. It was long overdue. I did notice you "back in the pool" and was glad of it. If you try to take Aztec to FA status, I'd be glad to help in whatever way I can. However, I feel that I am out of my depth as far as domain expertise. My strength is to serve as a WP:WikiGnome fixing little things and re-organizing when things get into a funky order.

--Richard 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Greco-Turkish war[edit]

Hi Richard. I do not say that u are trying to side with OttomanReference, and i think u are doing the right thing in assuming good faith. I also believe that the right thing to proceed in such cases is to use the talk page; i hope OttomanReference shares the same, with us, ideas on this. His edits seemed to be as if he was trying to present the Greeks as nationalists imperialists who were trying to occupy a land on which they had no historic rights or ethnological base, and as if the Asia Minor Greeks regarded them as invadors (instead as liberators, as they really did). I would like to see if he can present sources about his claims, but sources reliable enough, that will be talking about large numbers of Greeks who sided by the Turkish nationalists, so as to justify their inclusion in the article. Cause, if we are about to call isolate incidents as historic facts, there are many more examples of muslim inhabitants of asia minor who sided with the Greeks... We'll see how this issue will evolve. Regards Hectorian 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RfA: Khukri[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It became clear very quickly that my editing background was going to detrimental to my nomination. Having seen other recent RfA's fail once one or two admins opposed and others just piled on the vote, I decided it would save the ignominy if I withdrew my nomination. I don't intend to change the work I do as it's what I enjoy, so it'll be unlikely I'll apply again. Anyway thanks again for taking the time to review my nomination and giving your support. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Your input is requested[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi. Thank you for voting in my RfA. I have answered the concerns you raised in your vote. Wikiwoohoo 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for approving the USS Sea Hawk article[edit]

I was watching a show of JAG and noticed the ship's name. I googled it and found an answer at Wikipedia that the name was not used by the US Navy. But right underneath it I noticed the Navel site and found out it was. So I thought I would update the site. Thanks again for your hard work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.145.160.81 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for voting[edit]

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger[edit]

I'm sorry I don't have enough time recently to participate in the discussion. I have been informed however that Jadger claims to be a victim. I don't know what the anonymous user did, but Jadger is aggressive himself:

Jadger has written twice his comment on my Discussion page, against my will.
Jadger doesn't understand even short texts in German, but pretends to be competent.

Xx236 09:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed to be a victim of anything except personal attacks, which can be seen here. If a user writes something that another one does not like on talk pages, the other user does not have the right to delete or edit what other users write then sign. They can ask the other user to remove it, or they can ask for admin help, but cannot delete it themselves unless it is a personal attack. where have I pretended to be "competent" in German? My understanding of German is basic and if I knew anymore German I would place the userbox on my userpage that relates to that. As XX said, he is too busy and has no idea what is happening here, 131 has been abusive, and has a long history on German wiki of the same thing.

--Jadger 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ^{[citation needed]} tag. Potsdam Conference.[edit]

neighbour

"Potsdam Conference, meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the USSR, and Great Britain, following the unconditional surrender of Germany in World War II. It was held in Potsdam, near Berlin, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. The purpose of the conference was the implementation of decisions reached previously at the Yalta Conference. The U.S. was represented by President Harry S. Truman and the USSR by Premier Joseph Stalin. Great Britain was represented at first by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and later by the new prime minister, Clement Richard Attlee. A communiqué issued at the close of the conference, and known as the Potsdam Agreement, contained the decisions reached by the participants. The principal decisions related to Germany. Administration of the country, until the establishment of a permanent new government, was transferred to the military commanders of the U.S., the USSR, Great Britain, and France, in their zones of occupation, and a four-power Allied Control Council was created to resolve questions pertaining to Germany as a whole. Pending definitive settlement in a peace treaty, all lands east of the Oder and Neisse rivers were placed under Polish and Soviet jurisdiction. It was agreed that the four occupying powers of Germany should take reparations from their respective zones of occupation; but, because the USSR had suffered greater loss than any of the other major powers, provision was made for additional compensation to the USSR. Rigid measures of control were decided on in the Potsdam Conference to prevent Germany from ever again becoming a threat to world peace. The conferees determined to disarm the country and prevent remilitarization; to outlaw the National Socialist (Nazi) party that had been led by Hitler; to decentralize the economy and reorganize it with emphasis on agriculture; and to encourage democratic practices. On July 26, the U.S., British, and Chinese governments issued an ultimatum, called the Potsdam Declaration, to the Japanese government, confronting Japan with a choice between unconditional surrender and total annihilation; the USSR was not then at war with Japan and was not a party to the ultimatum. The representatives at the conference also set up a Council of Foreign Ministers to draft peace treaties and confirmed their intention to try Axis war criminals. Although the Potsdam Conference was considered successful, many of the agreements reached were dishonored within a year as a result of the growing rift between the USSR and Western Europe." A--131.104.218.46 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. However, that's a quotation not a citation. What is the source of the above quotation? Also, I'm confused as to how this relates to the {{fact}} tag that you and User:Jadger have been edit warring over. What specific assertion is it that you think requires a citation? --Richard 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Spanish conquest of Mexico[edit]

Global Warming[edit]

Adaptation to Global Warming[edit]

Re: Siege of Tenochtitlan[edit]

Carthage[edit]

Spanish conquest of Mexico[edit]

Please use Preview feature[edit]

Hi[edit]

Me name[edit]

re. Mediation offer[edit]

Templates[edit]

PreColombian civilizations[edit]

In Search of Lost Time mediation[edit]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

US article intro[edit]

History of the US article[edit]

Re: Your suggestion[edit]

Aztec codices notes[edit]

AfD George Harbottle[edit]

Expulsion of Germans after WW II[edit]

Wikiproject[edit]

hoax[edit]

The article about German population transfer[edit]

RFC[edit]

Pre-marital vs extra-marital sex[edit]

Police organization section in Crime in Mexico article[edit]

Global warming[edit]

Colonialism[edit]

I must say[edit]

macedonia[edit]

Move of archive page[edit]

A haiku of thanks[edit]

What's going on in the US article[edit]

WikiProjects[edit]

Table[edit]

United States article nomination[edit]

The Hatches of Carthage[edit]

Re: Please do not change {{Talk Archive}} to {{talkarchive}}[edit]

Vote in progress to move Counter-Reformation to Catholic Reformation[edit]

Good advice[edit]

Esperanza 3 months block thingy...[edit]

Comment on the Esperanza talk page[edit]

Some dude put your Criticism of Judaism article up for deletion. Save it now.[edit]

Archive standards[edit]

A short Esperanzial update[edit]

Apples and Oranges[edit]

Admin coaching[edit]

Assessment ratings for WP:AZTEC-related articles[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza#*ahem* ... er... Hi![edit]

GA nom for Spanish conquest of Mexico[edit]

Project Catholicism assessments[edit]

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment[edit]

Longer response[edit]

TfD nomination of Template:Project Catholicism 101[edit]

WP:AZTEC makeover[edit]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request[edit]

Archiving talk page must have failed[edit]

Template stuff[edit]

WP United States[edit]

Valley of Mexico map in Aztec article nominated for Featured Picture[edit]

"Don't bite back"[edit]

Conflict and stress[edit]

August Esperanza Newsletter[edit]

First aid transwiki[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Colonialism[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people)[edit]

Templates and Masssiveego RFA requirements.[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Yo.[edit]

Erika Steinbach[edit]

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church[edit]

Talk: Marvin Heemeyer[edit]

Your reversion[edit]

Inca Empire Vandalism[edit]

Reconstruction and the Changing South[edit]

Diocesan Infobox[edit]

Removal of useless talk[edit]

Blanking of talk pages[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza#ahem ... er... Hi![edit]

The ^{[citation needed]} tag. Potsdam Conference.[edit]