User talk:John K: Difference between revisions

User talk:John Kenney/Archive 1 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 2 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 3 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 4 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 5 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 6 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 7 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 8

Prince

If you have time and energy, you might want to take a look at Prince - it's a mess. I cleaned it up a bit, but it still has a long way to go. Noel (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Windsor

There seem to be things happening all the time in location of Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. And check also Talk:Wallis, Duchess of Windsor 217.140.193.123 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Dictator vs. Emperor section

Hey, you didn't even wait for my answer on the talk page? Was I so slow? Kindly asking you to put that section back, and have a look at my remarks first. Some wikipedia:wikiquette please! --Francis Schonken 23:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

going live

Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

Thanks for getting rid of the family name stuff in the lead to this article. I've never understood why some folks want to force irrelvant family names into royal biographies. I wasn't bold enough to remove it entirely (but Hannover was too much, and I didn't want to pick a fight without further research on Wettin/Este) but I'm very glad you did. Regards. --StanZegel 15:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

John, should the discussion of family names on the Queen Victoria talk page be moved to a more general policy area discussing royal names in general? This issue of family vs House names affects more than Queen Victoria: Queen Beatrix and Queen Juliana and Queen Wilhelmina (all of them successive Queens Regnant of the Netherlands) each possess different "family" names due to the infusion of different male blood at each generation due to the lack of male heirs. You seem to be the Godfather of the royal pages here, and the veteran of many of these discussions in the past, so if you think it appropriate I'm sure you'll tranfer the discussion to elsewhere. I just thought I'd raise the question. Regards, --StanZegel 00:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the specific QV discussion, to Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 18:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk moved back to Kemal Atatürk

I'd love to know why did you move it as so. Also please see my post in articles talk. Thank you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No I dont find that as a satisfactory answer. I never heard in my stay in the United States as him adressed as Kemal Atatürk. Can you please base it on something rather than claiming something? See article talk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You realise there was no consensus established either way. Wikipedia votes are not numeric. You make my life quite dificult with your fascination with burocracy. Very well... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states

Noticed this inactive WikiProject lying around with your name on it. Are you still interested in it at all? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Elephas recki?

I don't know. On the web, the best I can tell is that there was an African Elephant on the rotunda at least until 1999. Nothing on the web site mentions an Elephas Recki exhibit. But the display plaque and information all around the rotunda talked about Elephas recki. (I have photos if you'd like to see.) And at all the second-floor overlooks, where you can look down at the elephant, they displayed elephas recki bones and talked more about that species.

Either (1) they replaced the stuffed African Elephant with an Elephas recki reconstruction, and didn't update the webpage to say so, or (2) they surrounded an African Elephant with Elephas recki information in a very misleading way. They look like the same animal, though. Compare this PDF with my photo here.

Either way, it's odd. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, across the bottom of the rotunda, it says "Elephas recki was a species of elephant that went extinct. . .", and on a plaque right beside it, it says "Elephas recki". Very weird. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Marduk-apal-iddina II

Hello John You re-moved Marduk-apal-iddina I to Marduk-apal-iddina II, which I cannot understand. Due to the time schedule at the List of kings of Babylon, but also comparing with the article at the german wikipedia this seems to be wrong. Can u please explain. Thx --Creando 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Lord Elgin

I have left a note at the Talk Page on Lord Elgin.

Bathrobe 26 August

Earl of Forth

I am working on the article First English Civil War which is parto of a larg 1911 article and putting in links to various players. There is mention of the earl of Fourth which according to http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034975 was:

"Forth, Patrick Ruthven, Earl of, Earl Of Brentford, Lord Ruthven Of Ettrick"

Patrick Ruthven, earl of Forth born , c. 1573 died Feb. 2, 1651, Dundee, Scot. supreme commander of the Royalist forces of Charles I during the early phases of the English Civil Wars.

I am not sure how he ties into the link you created from Earl of Forth, could you help me out with this? I am putting a in red link into FECW as Patrick Ruthven, Earl of Forth for the moment, but please advise me if there is a better link and I'll change it. Philip Baird Shearer 18:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Baird Shearer 20:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear John,

Please stop making abuse of sysop powers. When we're full on in discussion about Exception 2 of Monarchical naming conventions, you start to delete pages, in order to circumvent the WP:RM procedure, like here - Catherine the Great as page name is perfectly in order with the present naming conventions, not even a big deal according to the present version of exception 2; even with a stricter formulation of that exception (as according to one of the two "stricter" formulations proposed) this would be perfectly possible. Indeed "Catherine the Great" is the more often used name in the real world. If someone thinks not, he should put it up for a WP:RM. That may take some time, while I think most would not be surprised to see that Empress named so. But if a vote comes out of it, at least we learn something w.r.t. the proposed modification of the guideline. So, no, don't try to create the impression that it's only me who proposes "monarchical system" to "application of exception 2" votes. Let someone else also put up some "application of exception 2" to "monarchical system" vote(s). So that (1) it's not always me who has to put up the vote (while you just snip your sysop powers); and (2) the 60% majority should come from the other side, while many of these votes are very close.

So I ask you politely to undo the page deletions and reverts you have just been performing on "exception 2 monarchs", and await the future.

Also, the AMA Request for assistance has not been treated. Indeed I had hoped it would, but it didn't, so at least please be moderate about this. I try so too, while this proves more tense than it should be. --Francis Schonken 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, thanks for your reply, but alas it doesn't help. There's no sign of consensus here. The only consensus we all share is that the present naming conventions for nobility titles deviate from the general wikipedia naming conventions. I'm convinced that's not a good thing for wikipedia; you're convinced you can force the deviant rule *while discussions are proceeding* by whatever means you think fit (including using sysop powers to prove a point). That's no-no. Including not waiting for some AMA help, that's no-no too. --Francis Schonken 01:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I will abstain from the kind of moves I did (as long as the reform of the applicable rule/exception is under treatment), since it apparently caused aggravation, which was not what I was hoping for. But, as I said several times, the complexity of the present Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) causes a lot of aggravation too, to many wikipedians (in which I include those that not regularly participate in votes). So better try to talk about the guideline as serenely as possible. I try to construct a list of representative examples. Adding the results of the votes of the 4 or 5 that are at present in WP:RM should contribute to that bigger picture. Triggering additional votes apart from the running votes would be unwise, I got that message clear.

For the record, a short explanation regarding what puzzled you: why I did the move in one case and the WP:RM in the other: simply, when the move was both justifiable and possible I did the move. When it was not possible (while I still thought it justifiable), I proceeded with the standard procedure, WP:RM.

--Francis Schonken 10:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Frederick_II_of_Prussia#Discussion I elaborated on that one, this time *exclusively* based on all printed sources I could lay hands on. Please have confidence: if I would have encountered a printed source differing from what seems usual in English, I would have quoted that one too! --Francis Schonken 11:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess you wish to influence to the infamous "consort naming". Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Atatürk

Hi, a new page called Criticism of Atatürk has been created containing most of the long criticism section that was in Ataturk. There is a disagreement running in the discussion whether Ataturk should be accused of a genocide or not, your input would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 21:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirects and dab pages

Hi, I replied to your posts at Talk:William of Orange#This page ought to stay a redirect. You might find User_talk:Jnc/Disambiguation interesting too (dunno if you read that as well as the proposal page itself). Noel (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig

You might be interested in this conversation: [1] Jayjg ^(talk) 08:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi John,

I know we're not always the best friends opinion-wise. This talk page, and my own user talk page show enough of that. That's why I come specifically to you to back me up on this one (please click that link) - so that people can see that those who ideologically maybe are opponents can make the difference between that, and another problem that needs a solution one way or another. --Francis Schonken 15:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Voting procedures

Hi John, your note on my page set me to thinking on some things regarding voting procedures:

• I wasn't aware that "a nomination counts as a vote"? Never heard that, didn't find it in the guidelines either? So I always voted on the votes I proposed, so are you saying that I shouldn't have done that?

Not saying that at all. That was my point - 217 nominated as 217, and then voted as Arrigo. That could be construed to double count, but it could be not so construed. Your interpretation of it would suggest that Arrigo did not double vote. john k 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I understand what you meant. But no problem then that someone votes on the vote he initiated, if only using the same name? --Francis Schonken 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Looking for specifications on voting procedures, I found something is wrong with the WP:RM guideline: that guideline states that for EVERY WP:RM vote "approval voting" is advisory, which includes the votes with two options (which most often occur, it the form of "move"/"nomove"), while on the other hand Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote states that approval vote is only a possible voting procedure if and when there are more than two options to choose from (and that "more than two options to choose from" is not preferable: first talk should establish what the two most obvious choices are, only if that's not possible more options should be added, prior to starting the vote). I think WP:RM should be adapted.

I'm not sure. Personally, I don't think that we should have votes for requested moves unless it appears there can be no consensus. I dislike all this over-bureaucratization. john k 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that one, but that's not the point: WP:RM has to explain what has to happen if in the end a vote occurs. You're not clear on that point. On the other hand, it seems we're going to get nearer to the point where we agree on getting rid of the bulk of over-bureaucratization of wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) --Francis Schonken 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• One of the last votes triggered by Arrigo (talk:Philip III, Duke of Burgundy) appears hopelessly flawed to me, among others:
  • WP:RM does not foresee a "confirmation vote" after a (questionable) move has been been performed: WP:RM says explicitly: "Requested moves is intended only for moves that either may be disputed, so that consensus should be obtained before the move, or that require administrator involvement because the intended new location also has a page history." (I bolded "before the move" - anyway the guideline seems to exclude "confirmation vote after the move")
  • Arrigo seems to have done no effort to either nominate the two most likely alternatives, either if that was not done, do enough preparation of the vote so that the 3 or 4 or 5 possible alternatives were known.

In other words: creating mess, chasing some people up the tree in the process.

His Elizabeth of Bohemia initiative was not much better...

I agree that his proposals have often not been terribly helpful, but I'm not sure they cross the line into trolling or WP:POINT. john k 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Never said that. But "mess" was created one way or another. Can be just the guidelines that were too prone to mess getting created. That's typically what happens when rules are over-bureacratized (ask any sociologue) --Francis Schonken 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I know I triggered votes too, that, with retrospect, I shouldn't have done: most of all since my real objective was to get the Names & Titles NC adapted to an acceptable level, not lose endless time with votes. Note that that doesn't excuse your irresponsable behaviour of moving one of the "William of Orange"s during the "William of Orange" vote.

I didn't realize my move would be controversial. The vote at William of Orange had nothing to do with where the page on William the Silent should be, so I don't see how the two are related. That vote just made me aware that the page was at William I of Orange, which doesn't comply with naming standards, so I moved it. Had I know it would be controversial, I would not have done so, but I don't see how the fact that a vote on something completely different was going on at William of Orange should have any effect on it. john k 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I moved it back, and then you moved it back again: "not being aware it was controversial" sounds silly after someone has moved it back to its old place. And your move was not "moving towards what the guideline prescribed", as has been established. But let's not focus on that again. It's going to be something different in all probability, and I'm not sad I did the elaborate study on that guy's name, neither that I started that vote. --Francis Schonken 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So here we are with all the mess. Basicly, I think you're a reasonable guy, and I also think there should be less messy ways to solve differences. As for Arrigo, I wouldn't worry too much. If he doesn't split his personality during discussions, he's OK I suppose. If he splits personality, every wikipedian is entitled to know he's the same as whatever other name or IP he uses. Regardless of whether or not this is sockpuppeteering in a broad or a narrow sense: people should just be able to know these "two" are not two separate voices in the same discussion. And that IP 217 is a regular, not a newbie.

I completely agree with this. Has Arrigo/217 ever responded directly to this issue? john k 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No he didn't, and I came to think that's part of the game he plays. If the question is asked directly, he doesn't reply (see for example Philip Baird Shearer's attempts to clarify the issue on talk:William of Orange). Also this deletion on his own talk page is rather characteristic: when his behaviour is exposed, he tries to get rid of it with the excuse it's not relevant... --Francis Schonken 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that I don't think doing good work "most of the time" is anything near to a good argument to keep someone in the wikipedia system. The problem is what goes on during the rest of the time: if its just laziness, or carelessness, or whatever, I still could accept. If it's deliberately disturbing consensus procedures (which are not easy), to post the result of the disturbance on BJAODN or similar, I think someone like that can be replaced by thousands of other would-be wikipedians that are still out there. Now, that's only my personal opinion (and, there would be a practical problem to enforce it). But it's not too unlike what Jimbo Wales said when he was in Brussels half a year ago: wikipedia doesn't have a shortage of contributors. --Francis Schonken 19:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If it could be demonstrated that he is deliberately provoking people in order to put up things at BJAODN, he should be banned. This may be what he is doing, but I don't think it can be proven to any degree, because he is quite clever. john k 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So, here's what I do: expose the behaviour (facts, no exagerration), so that other people know. If people are warned there's less chance they get in useless disputes with both identities. And then, ultimately, either he's no longer disruptive, or he'll commit offense that's easier to pin down and get banned. --Francis Schonken 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Shilkanni

I don't know if I'd dismiss his contributions as simple "nonsense": enough people have heard of Rohl's theories that we need to at least mention them to preserve NPOV. However, I feel the best thing to do with the 2 articles you mentioned is while stating that Rohl has argued for these identifications, there is more solid evidence showing that the mainstream identifications are correct; educate the readers who come here from Rohl, if you will. I hadn't bothered to add any mention of Rohl to these articles because IIRC, Rohl devoted only a couple of pages in an appendix to this identification, & so it wasn't as important to deal with as, say, writing an article about the Kingdom of Kaffa. -- llywrch 18:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Medievalism

Hi John, I try to keep up with all the discussions going on at "Names & Titles" NC talk page, including the "Ordinals of medieval personages", that is: from the viewpoint of improving the NC texts I'm working on. As discussions they seem however too thoroughly uninteresting to get myself involved in the page-filling talk: the proposed guidelines would be able to solve such issues with less fuss (in the medieval ordinals case: the way you see it). I work towards getting acceptance for the proposals now, while also still working on some encyclopedia articles. Other discussions about principles: I read them, but usually do not get involved.

BTW, did you already find an opportunity ro read The Cathedral and the Bazaar? That's only an invitation, but I'd be interested to know whether you did? --Francis Schonken 08:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Minister-Presidents Ministers-President?

hi John Kenney,

I see you created a list of the Bavarian Minister-Presidents, which is awesome. I have a question though about the plural form of this, because there seems to be confusion. are many Ministerpräsidenten in english translated as "Minister-Presidents" or "Ministers-President". because to me this last version sounds strange, altough it says so in the article Minister-President. Maybe you could get back to me on this...? cheers File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 22:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your promt reply John. Wow, that's really interesting and confusing, I didn't know about the "Attorneys-General" although of course it makes sense, they are not generals *lol*. However I do see a problem with the german version, because indeed it is Ministerpräsidenten, with the added confusion that Minister in German would be singular and plural. I was asking because there was another list of flemish ministers-presidents, and so how would this be done? Flemish Minister-presidents or ministers-president? I am not familiar with how it's done in Dutch, although I would suspect it would be similar to German grammar. Maybe we can agree to at least leave the German Ministerpräsidenten the way you intially wrote it for Bavaria, maybe including Austrian Ministerpräsidenten? File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll tell you what, I'll get in contact with the Staatskanzleien and the Chancellery and ask what forms they officialy use in English, maybe this could help us shed a little bit more light on this, sounds ok? File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Protecting History of The Internet

Hi. I'm not entirly sure why you have protected History of the Internet, since no request for protection has been made on. I had already started the along the Arbitration Process to try and get a concensus on the issue. Unfortunatly, protecting the article will escalate the matter, and we will end up passing around blame for 'getting the article protected'.

Follow Wikipedia:Protection policy before protecting articles. Particularly the section on not reverting or editing the article being protected. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 19:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}

Can I ask again why you reverted the article prior to protecting, which goes against Wikipedia:Protection policy? --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}

I am afraid your responce is inacruate. The Dispute over content had been ongoing well before the version of the page you have reverted to. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 21:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}

Daniel Pipes

You deserve a barnstar for dealing with that. Good for you, you are credit to Wikipedia. DannyZz 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Styles - vandalism?

Hi John,

Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick appears to have been filled with in-line "styles" info repeated in near to every paragraph, by an anonymous user (IP 130.88.243.185) diff

The anonymous user apparently has a UK IP, and takes only an interest in "royals" and "veganism", see list of contributions

May I ask you as a sysop experienced in this sort of things to have a look at it, possibly revert Vicky's article to my last version, and have a check whether the anonymous might possibly be an alter ego of other/previous littering of articles? I'm not too experienced in what is acceptable as "styles" repetitions throughout an article... --Francis Schonken 12:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

tx, I wasn't sure. Nonetheless 2 times "Princess Royal" (and some other doubles) in the opening paragraph looked a bit exagerrated to me, I'm still going to change that. --Francis Schonken 17:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fine. john k 19:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Drat!

I don't know what I'll do now that my secret plan to restore the monarchy in Portugal has been revealed. Perhaps I will spend my time thinking of situations in which my "support" might actually be helpful to Dom Duarte...Nope. Can't think of any. <g>. - Nunh-huh 08:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the old netnews threads, it looks as if Manuel is the "Grand Chancellor" to "Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança", soi-disant adoptive successor to "Maria Pia". Mind you, those threads do appear to tail off into arcane bickering about the legitimate putative pretenders to the Portugese throne, which I suppose is how he got the idea of silencing criticism by crying "Miguelist!" (And the article on Rosario should probably be moved to "Rosario Poidimani" and have its POV neutralized, come to think.) Choess 09:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Chronology of the Ancient Near East

I left a message for thee on the talk page of Chronology of the Ancient Near East concerning its clean up. I have been working on a redraft, but have stopped until I get some criticism of the work so far. I began writing the article in one particular way, but I feel it may not be quite what others had in mind. I don't mind if you think I have gotten the wrong end of the stick and believe it ought to be done wholly differently, I simply want some input. It seems that no-one else will clean up the article, so I will, I just don't want to see another clean up notice on my hard work. Oswax 23:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

List of pharaohs

I had changed the 12th dynasty away from the Oxford dates, as they are very approximate and not very specific. The Year 7, day 1 heliacal rising of Senusret III is a specific date on which to anchor this dynasty. I'm not doing any original research if that's what you're worried about; I'm just using chronologies other than the Oxford one. I'm changing it back again. If there's a reason I shouldn't, let me know.--Rob117 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Totalitarian dictators

Hi, good to run into you again... Thanks for your vigilance on the Ceausescu article. Also, if you have time, please keep an eye on this nightmare category. At least an argument can be made that Ceausescu's regime was totalitarian; but some confused individuals have been randomly sticking this tag in articles on the likes of the Duvaliers and the Somozas, whom, of course, no political scientists consider totalitarian leaders. 172 | Talk 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it'd be a lot of help if you take a look at the category for deletion page. 172 | Talk 23:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I put the CfD back up, making the case that we need a second opinion given the trend in voting. With a few more delete votes, the ~75% threshold will be surpassed, meaning that it won't be able to survive by technicality. 172 | Talk 23:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Women

I would appreciate it if you would stop being so dismissive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an explanation of my position. You may not agree with it, but it's perfectly coherent. I gave you another example, that of Hamas (terrorist). I asked you whether, if there were two organizations called Hamas, one a group engaged in political violence, and the other an Arab feminist group, you would find it acceptable to call one "Hamas (feminist)" and the other "Hamas (terrorist)". I assume you would not, even though Hamas is widely regarded as a terrorist group, not only by members of the public, but also by the European Union, Israel, the U.S., and Canada. Therefore, according to the common-use argument, which you are espousing, disambiguating with Hamas (terrorist) ought to be perfectly acceptable. Your only response to my argument was that I should find a real example, though I fail to see what difference that would make. The example I gave is clear and concrete enough. It's an example of what philosophers call a thought experiment, and the point of it is to tease out any inconsistencies in a position. I think you're using the common-use argument in this case because it suits you, but I also think you would ditch it if it ran counter to your POV, or seemed in any way inappropriate, as in the Hamas (terrorist) case. And I just wish you would address that point. Or if you're not prepared to address it (and of course you're under no obligation to), then at least stop being so dismissive of the arguments, because they are actually quite valid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Indefensible"

John, I expect that your future experience with Jayjg and SlimVirgin will provide ample defense for anything I've done.

Regards.

Marsden 22:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. From my perspective, heroic actions should not be necessary to keep Wikipedia from being a platform for espousing ethnic cleansing. No one should have to subscribe to the falsehood that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are above-board editors in order to stop this from happening. If that is the way Wikipedia must be, then I think it would be better to destroy it. Marsden 22:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you suppose is the point of wanting to avoid the term "occupation?" Marsden 23:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you suppose the Israeli government objects to the term "occupation?" Marsden 23:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see why Jayjg is so keen on keeping the water matter out of the article. Just as brief background, the Israelis and the Palestinians currently over-exploit the water resources of the area. Israel gets about a third of its water from the West Bank, and strictly limits Palestinian access to West Bank water. Religious fanatacism aside, the Israeli government -- whether Likud or Labor -- has supported the settlements in order to make a claim on the West Bank's water. Arguably, part of the reason Israel was willing to pull out of Gaza is that the Gaza Strip's aquifer has been ruined: Gaza is going to have to figure out a way to import water in vast quantities in the very near future, or a big chunk of its population is going to have to leave.

Now, the West Bank's water is similarly being over-exploited, albeit to a lesser degree. Israel has grabbed control of all of it other than whatever the Palestinians there were already using in 1967: West Bank Palestinians are prohibited from digging new wells or from improving existing ones, and are put in the position of having to buy back from Israel water that the Israelis took from them. Further, because this situation puts Israel in control of the water, it can ratchet up prices to Palestinians -- who already have to pay higher prices for water than the Israeli settlers among them -- to the point of strictly limiting the Palestinian population that can live in the West Bank. Meanwhile, Israel has no plans on limiting its own population, nor of curtailing its per capita water use. The time will come when there absolutely isn't enough water to go around, and Israel, maintaining its "no occupation" fantasy, will decide who gets it.

Who do you think will get the water, and what do you think will happen to the ones who don't get it?

Marsden 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Last message: when there is no good faith, it is a mistake to assume that there is. Marsden 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

John, I believe in assuming good faith, but there has to be a point where you say, actually, these people are pushing a POV and pushing it hard. The whole world calls the territories "the Occupied Territories". That's readily ascertained. But Wikipedia does not. Why? It has a policy to use the most common names for things and does not apply the NPOV policy to names for articles (see Yom Kippur War, where Jay's faction fiercely opposes a move to a neutral title). How else are you supposed to illuminate that without making a point? The editors in question simply aren't interested in reason, the policies of Wikipedia or anything else. They are only interested in ensuring that our articles reflect a particular POV. These are people who believe that we should include the commentary of an Israeli journalist on an event she did not witness and has no privileged access to... why? What is the good-faith explanation for that? These are people who believe that it's okay to have an article on Islamist/Islamic terrorism to describe people who commit acts of violence and are also Muslims or Islamists, but not okay to have an article on Zionist terrorism to describe people who commit acts of violence and are also Zionists. What is the good-faith explanation for that, John? We needn't even go into their expressed support for extremist editors, who they describe as editing in good faith. (Our own side is always acting in good faith, hey, and the opposition is always pushing a POV! Work on controversial articles enough and you get used to that notion.)

I understand Marsden's view, although I don't wholly share it. I think that Slim's view is ambivalent on the territories but she wouldn't, at least that I can see, support "transfer" (I'm not so clear about Jay because he has been very vehemently anti-Palestinian nation in some places, but even so, he hasn't spoken in support of "transfer"). But certainly her views, and those of Jay, as expressed in their editing, and their defence of their editing on talkpages, facilitate that idea, because it is coherent with it at so many points. I daresay they would say the same about my, or your, views and Arab antisemitism. Sympathy for Palestine can readily be seen as sympathy for the destruction of Israel as proposed by some Arabs or as sympathy for an antijewish worldview, which I'm sure you do not subscribe to, and I know I don't. Some of the less moderate editors on their side are prone to throwing that suggestion into the pot, you may have noted. Grace Note 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

John,

I see to my dismay and disappointment that someone has again reverted the Free City of Danzig article to "Free City of Gdansk," which we Wikipedians had decided last year was historically inaccurate. As far as I can understand the mentality of Polish nationalists on this issue, they believe that the Free City that existed in 1920-39 should have been known in English as the Free City of Gdansk, even though it:

a) Was inhabited 97% by Germans who called the city Danzig. b) Called itself Freie Stadt Danzig. c) Was universally known in English as the Free City of Danzig.

This attitude apparently is due to the fact that Danzig had been in the Polish political orbit in the 15th through 17th centuries, i.e. was under the suzerainty of the Polish crown. To resort to the dictionary: Danzig then was a semi-autonomous state controlled politically by the suzerain power, Poland.

It is also due to the Polish nationalists' romantic reluctance to accept the historical reality of the conquest of the region in the 13th century by the Teutonic Order and its subsequent ethnic-German development. The Poles, quite simply, wish this never had happened. But it did.

The reality in 1920-39 was that the entity in question was known in English as the Free City of Danzig, which was only reasonable given that its name for itself was Danzig. Further, the topic of "Danzig" was understood the world over to refer to contention between Germany and Poland over the political status of the Free City of Danzig, which indeed was Hitler's primary pretext for attacking Poland. Thus, to refer to it now as the Free City of Gdansk is to ignore not only the history of the city, but the history of the Interwar Period and of World War II.

I must vehemently protest the continued vandalism of certain Wikipedians on this issue. It is not only contrary to Wikipedia rules, and violates and previous vote on the Danzig/Gdansk issue, it also is a form of historical revisionism that seeks to obscure the largest forced uprooting ("migration" is not the right word) of human beings in recorded history, in recent history no less.

All these arguments have been gone over countless times in the last two years. Consequently, I suggest that the article be reverted to Free City of Danzig, and locked.

Sca 19:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Plural is not really needed here, I know only one guy to promote the "Free City of Gdańsk" idea. Halibutt 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, I've replied by e-mail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust

I am reminded that this is still awaiting some decisions. What are your thoughts on what ought to happen? Adam 00:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Dervish Tsaddik

I noticed you've unbanned Dervish Tsaddik. I would like to inform that he/she vandalized my (former) userpage [2] [3] and talkpage [4]. In his/her edit summaries, said user stated, "...you made the mistake of leaving a trace to your computer...the unpleasant [t]ruth is that you computer is now infected with a virus..." This user should be rebanned. Banneduser96 18:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not dead! - Just in Manchester.

Hi, I'm am still around and have read your comments on the Chronology of the Ancient Near East. I have not been editing for couple of days because I have recently moved house and started new job. I will make some more updates in the next few days, and, with consent from other concerned users, switch my version with the current one. From then on anyone can make any changes they see necessary. Oswax 19:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Pretenders

Must be the season or something: we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança (with Manuel de Sosa, cheerily semi-literate, leading the charge as usual) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De jure Charles VIII, the perpetrator of which has been sticking in links to his website in various otherwise sane articles (see Special:Contributions/86.131.4.14). Lend a vote! Choess 03:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Trouble with the two versions template

Hello. Could you advise what I should do to such situation: [5]? Briefly, it was resulted from the new section that I've added for Macao. User:Huaiwei insisted it should instead be spelt "Macau". Both spellings are used by the Macanese government in English, but "Macao" is preferred, and is the spelling used in the English name printed on the passports the government issues. In my opinion, no particular preference should be given to any of the two spellings, as colour vs. color. To avoid edit warring, I put on the {{twoversions}} tag, but Huaiwei keeps reverting back to the other version which he prefers. — Instantnood 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out (for the sake of balance in arguments), that Instantnood has been unwilling in recognising the fact that a spelling dispute exists [6], let alone displaying a genuine desire in dispute resolution. Even after being reminded that the spelling controversy is far from over, he proceeded to continue using Macao in all his edits including in the above article, knowing full well that others disapprove of it. He tried to use the {{twoversions}} tag on his version, but fails to also conduct discussion in the relevant talkpage until I lambasted him for it [7]. The discussion there appears to be grinding to a rapid halt, as has also happened in Talk:Macau, something he probably forsees. Hence his preference for over-using {{twoversions}}, as he uses the impasse and stalled discussions to justify the continued display of his prefered version. As for content issues over how Macau should be spelt, it is all there in the relevant talk pages as mentioned. Instantnood's inclusion of his views on this content matter in your talk page suggests to me that he is far from nuetral in his call for outside comments.

I do hope you may take these facts into your consideration when assessing this issue. Thank you, and I apologise in advance if this amounts to misusing your talk page.--Huaiwei 17:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For your information, john k, that my policy in using the {{twoversions}} template is to display a version according to what the certain article was like before the disputes. I do not choose a version to display arbitrarily, nor a version that I preferred. List of railway in China is an example.

As for Macao/Macau, it's unavoidable to choose one of the two spellings when adding new content, like creating new articles, or adding information about Macao/Macau to articles that previously have nothing about Macao/Macau. — Instantnood 17:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I must say that I am completely disinterested in this issue. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think I want to get involved. john k 17:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. :-D — Instantnood 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am relieved for some reason. I apologise for the unwelcome intrusion.--Huaiwei 18:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious activity

Hello - I've seen some of your edits but we've never communicated in the past which is why I wanted to see if you could help me as a neutral observer. There has been an ongoing dispute at Israeli West Bank barrier between myself and User:Zeq - discussed at length on the talk page there, and on his own talk page. He has been attempting to insert out-of-context edits into that article, and also trying to eliminate some of my own. He has been advised by other editors to work with me, and I have offered countless times to help him because of his English, but to no avail. Yesterday, he tried to imbalance the article section about the effect of the barrier on Palestinians by quoting an article from "The Jerusalem Post" that took an unrelated point of view (that of Israeli Arabs on the Israeli side of the fence) and insert how they are benefitting from the barrier at the top of that section, ignoring that most sources agree that the Palestinian conditions due to the barrier has been overwhelmingly negative. Yesterday I noticed a couple of suspicious things. First, he inserted a factually incorrect quotation "although all water rights in the area are covered by exiting agreements" and attributed it to this, a hypothetical water agreement introduced as a suggestion by a think tank in lieu of the fact that there are no water agreements between the parties (and I pointed this out on the discussion page). Instead of responding to me, he added a couple of more quotes: "although other sources confirm that "land on the other side of the barrier in this area is not good for agriculture"" and " students, teachers and medical personnel usually do not need permits" and cited this highly suspicious source. It is these last couple of entries that finally have convinced me that I need help with this person. If you look at the first actual quotation, it does not show up in this website which is a "www.proxytool.com" site that was actually blocked from our servers in my workplace (usually happens with objectionable sites). If you Google the phrase "although other sources confirm that "land on the other side of the barrier in this area is not good for agriculture" in whole or in part, it will bring only one hit (his source), an UNRWA article that does not include this phrase. The actual article is found at "http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/barrier/profiles/alfei.html", which makes me wonder what this "proxytool" thing is . My main complaint is that he has insisted on providing certain phrases that describe some rare "benefit" of the wall (such as the removal of checkpoints because they are not needed) from articles that are otherwise very critical of the effects of the wall on Palestinians, and refused to let me balance them out. Now this proxytool thing has made me even more suspicious. Comparing his latest entries with my last entry should make this a lot clearer to see. Sorry for this long message but I was hoping you could at least check it out when you have time. Thank you Ramallite ^(talk) 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I guess I was just wondering whether you had any advice but I realize that the discussion page has become too cluttered that even I can't follow it. In all honesty, I was basically wondering/hoping you'd have prior knowledge about this 'www.proxytool.com' website to alleviate my suspicions about it, because it seems it can be manipulated to point to other sites (like in this case, the UN). But if you haven't heard of it before, please don't worry about it, I'll see if I can dig up more information. Sorry that my previous posting had no beginning, no end, and no point, that's what happens when I refuse to go to bed and get some sleep. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

House of Anjou

Yes, I noticed the "Whobot" making this ridiculous change. I tried to undo it, but he was having none of it. The discussion, such as it was, is at this hidden location. I've gotten him to agree not to interfere with recategorization of the House of Anjou into a more rationale system, even if it involves a category named Plantagenet. Can you suggest a classification? I was thinking of something along the lines of:

• Category: Houses of Anjou
  • sub-category: Plantagenet dynasty
    • sub-category: House of York
    • sub-category: House of Lancaster
  • sub-category: House of Anjou (senior branch)
  • sub-category: House of Anjou (junior branch)

But it would best to get more input so a stable classification could be found. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...referring to Counts of Anjou before Geoffrey as Plantagenets is clearly wrong. It is to be noted that referring to those after Geoffrey as Plantagenets is anachronism - this name was never used by post-Geoffrey Plantagenets until the time of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, in the 15th century. Nevertheless, it is commonly used. The Valois-Anjous should probably be at Category:House of Valois-Anjou. The descendants of Charles I, though, I'm not really sure. john k 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't intend to refer to the Counts of Anjou before Geoffrey as Plantagents, they'd be in the category of Houses of Anjou. I'm open to suggestions. Throwing everything into the class "House of Anjou" is silly.

• Category: Houses of Anjou
  • sub-category: Plantagenet dynasty (or British Angevins)
    • sub-category: House of York
    • sub-category: House of Lancaster
  • sub-category: House of Anjou (senior branch) or French House of Anjou, first branch, or First Capetian House of Anjou
  • sub-category: House of Anjou (junior branch) or French House of Anjou, second branch, or Second Capetian House of Anjou or House of Valois-Anjou.
    - Nunh-huh 05:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

John, I've copied portions of this to Category talk:House of Anjou where it may elicit more suggestions. - Nunh-huh 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why insist on Christian-centric notation when there is a neutral alternative?

Especially in articles on sensitive topics, it is highly inappropriate. BCE/CE is denominationally neutral and commonly accepted. You ignored my questions at Talk:Kingdom of Judah. I challenge you to demonstrate tolerance. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

John, there is nothing personal about this and it does not matter who you are, it is what you write. Just a few years ago I was oblivious to the date notation question (and can demonstrate my own WP edits where I used BC/AD), until it has been pointed out to me that since a viable and neutral alternative exists, it is not appropriate in some particular articles. In my view, these articles consitute what ArbCom ruled "a substantial reason" for a particular notation. Per MoS, either BC/AD or BCE/CE are acceptable. So far no one explained the reason to use potentially inappropriate notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think some people need reminding that articles about Jews or Jewish subjects aren't in themselves "Jewish" and don't require any special treatment. Grace Note 05:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

False etymology

You're right - I'm picking the wrong words (is that a malapropism?). I'm sure there's some term to mean falsely believing that a word's etymology equates to its current meaning though, just can't think what it is. I'm hoping that, now Humus is fully aware that the ArbCom really did mean "no changes" that he will accept that, but we'll have to see. If not I imagine he will be quickly isolated by those who do accept that. Anyway, thanks for your comment, I just hope that soon we can all get back to more profitable editing. Kind regards, jguk 18:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* Humus is not fully aware that the arbcom meant no change, because that's not what the written decision says, and they haven't changed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's what they said: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable."

They seem to be comparing it to the American/British English situation, where the first-major-contributor rule applies, unless there is something about the article that would make one or another style more appropriate e.g. that it's about an event that happened in the UK. It was Jguk who argued long and hard to get that established in the MoS — argued about it vociferously for months, so that he could change to British English whenever possible. But now, when it doesn't suit him, he argues against it, and even argues that the arbcom meant nothing by mentioning it. Now suddenly he's all in favor of the first-major-contributor rule again. It's this complete volte face that I'm so surprised at. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ştefan cel Mare move

I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Ştefan cel Mare concerning a move to Stephen the Great, similar to that of Mihai Viteazul and Michael the Brave. Take a long if you are interested. Olessi 19:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Territories under Israeli control

Hi John, I appreciate your thoughtful response to me on the article talk page. I'm basically in agreement with what you said. I was going to reply further, but [sigh] the anon troll's comments reminded me of how futile and frustrating this project has become to me. Sometimes I think Wikipedia is more about pissing contests than writing an encyclopedia! Anyway, I'm just too frustrated to involve myself any further. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here. The "bullies" seems to have bullied themselves off the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, some of my gripes:

• Your use of the phrase "ass backwards". I guess I'm a little prudish at times.

That's pretty mild, I think. Nevertheless, I did not mean to offend by using colorful language. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Promoting your opinion to fact: "there are nevertheless objective differences".

I'm not sure what the context here was. In an analysis, though, I am bound to be discussing my interpretations of the facts, rather than the facts themselves. I wasn't trying to claim any greater status for my arguments than that they are my interpretations of the facts. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Andjam trying to claim that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution is basically like a declaration of war" - not entirely untrue, but a slight exaggeration of my tone.

In the course of argument, there is bound to be at least some oversimplification of the opponents' arguments. I did not, however, mean to exaggerate, but simply to paraphrase. If this was an inaccurate gloss, I can only try to do better in the future. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The current title seems to be generally agreed to be an inadequate neologism." - you seemed to have ignored me previously arguing that my proposed title wasn't a neologism.

That is true, I did ignore this. I will say (and I meant to say when I first saw it, forgot in the midst of making other comments) that while I'm sure the phrase "territories under Israeli control" has escaped someone's lips at some point (as has "territories captured by Israel in 1967," I'm sure), as a proper noun/article title, it is a neologism. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Calling people crazy right wingers.

I shouldn't have put it this way, but I was not meaning to refer to any wikipedia editors, but to those groups in the world at large who generally support the Settler movement and its aims. In the context of Israeli politics, this is most certainly the far right. But it was still a very poor choice of words. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ignoring my argument that there is no NPOV alternative to "Armenian Genocide".

I agree with this. But I don't think there's a genuine NPOV alternative to "Occupied Territories," either. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Ok" for all of the above. Andjam 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The McCarthyist tone in "what makes you think that anybody else is willing to carry their water for them?"

McCarthyist? I'm afraid I don't understand. My point was simply that it doesn't make sense for wikipedia, as an international encyclopedia, to take a position on the question of occupation which is far beyond that which the Israeli government is willing to take in its own courts. Perhaps this was phrased in an unfortunate manner. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not disputing your point, but I'll explain what I meant by McCarthyist. "Carrying their water" suggests that those arguing a certain legal opinion would only do so if they were being paid to do so (or equivalent) by Israel. Andjam 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• You giving a free pass to Marsden's attempt to disenfranchise me (ostensibly made as a joke, but given his behaviour in the thread ought to be taken seriously) when criticising Jayig's comment on Vizcarra.

I did not specifically do so, but that was because a) he was clearly joking, with the "I'll come up with a reason later" - his point was to criticize Jay for trying to exclude Vizcarra, not to actually try to disenfranchise you. At any rate, I certainly disapprove of all efforts to disenfranchise people, and I should have made that clear. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Andjam 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The fact that there seems to be substantial support for turning an article about the territories that came under Israeli control after the 1967 war into a general article on - I'm not sure what - the fact that Arabs don't recognize Israel? - is most distressing." In the lengthy comment that followed, not once did you consider the possibility of neighbouring states wanting to negotiate over land gained by Israel in the 1947 war. Not even when I complained that you had ignored that possibility in that section, a section where you replied to another comment by me. Trying to set up a straw man is not nice.

Of course neighboring states wanted to negotiate about the 1948 borders. But this article originaly conceived as one about the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights. There is a clear need for an article about this subject, and I did not think that the issue of the negotiability of the borders within the green line was relevant. Basically - I think there is a need for an article on the subject which the Territories under Israeli control article currently covers. If you want to write an article about general border conflicts, the 1947 UN Plan, and so forth, go ahead and do so. But that doesn't solve the question of where the article about the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights should be. Does this clarify? john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand the argument you are making here, but that doesn't mean you should have misrepresented what I was saying. In addition, the phrase "that Arabs don't recognise Israel?" paints me as a racist, in the sense that it portrays me as having a negative attitude to "the arabs" as a monolithic entity. Andjam 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope I'm not sounding too harsh. I appreciate your willingness to criticise bad behaviour by other people. Thanks, Andjam 13:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I said that you should feel free to criticize me, and I meant it. I know that I have a tendency to get worked up and respond while still angry, which I'm sure sometimes detracts from what I'm trying to say. john k 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Andjam 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

John, would you happen to know what El_C was referring to with "Territories under Israeli control moved to Israeli-occupied Territories: Renaming as promised and agreed upon"? Andjam 07:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Judah

Dear John, I have read your edit summary on Judah. And since I have already asked about this on the talk page but no one answered - so your opinion is, that this should be only about Judah/Judea and not about all of the Holy Land. It is important in regard to the Diadoch realms and the crusader states and the Herodians. Probably it is the best to restrict it in such a way, not only because of the name, but because it will make it less complicated. What about the post 1848 situation?

Cheers, Str1977 22:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, I take it from your post on my talk page that (if post the 586 area is included) that you'd restrict the bounds of that article to Judah and Judea, leaving out Samaria, Gallilee, Philistea et al. Right?

Could you also weigh in on my David and Solomon issue on the same page? My fingers are itching to include them. Reasons are given on the talk page. Thanks. Str1977 09:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbReq against Jguk

FYI. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Henry the Navigator

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Frederick William III of Prussia

I appreciate your editing of my entry on Frederick William III. I am writing on Lutheran settlement in Australia, and Frederick William's decrees were a major part in this. I possibly have a slightly Lutheran POV, and would welcome any attempts to clean up what I wrote to a NPOV. SauliH 07:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Occupied Territories

jayg is just making a point - and carrying on the debate from Zionist Terrorism where people insisted that "Zionist terrorism is exclusively used by right wihng..." as a phrase is Original Research. As an admin he should know better. Unbehagen 11:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically someone (usually jayg) insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then insit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you restore an article move?

Israeli settlement was moved to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in spite of directly refering to settlements in Gaza, Golan, Sinai. Can you restore it to the more appropriate name? I think this requires deleting the redirect at Israeli settlement. Thanks in advance. Marsden 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Philadelphia

My god something i though i never see happen, something that we actucally agree on. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Their is only one that i know of, a metropolitian area def, either way it nice to see that some one who has a background in history and has a conneaction to the city vice their opinion rather then the mergest whos only reason is becaus q, r, s is this way then y should be as well, dont get me wrong i do belive in limited standarsdation, but thats in the presentation of information (visual) then the actucaly infomation it's self (context). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Project

Hi i have noticed that you have edited several articles on subjects related to the Philadelphia area. Several other users and myself have got together to creak a project to help improve, expand, and create articles concerning the Philadelphia/Delaware Valley region. While our project is still new, we are inviting people to join us to help it get started off on the right foot. You can find the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia, feel free to add your name and drop off an suggestions that you might have. If you have any questions, drop me a line anytime. Thanks. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Iron Guard

John, would you please revert what you think is appropriate to revert? (As I remarked at Talk:Iron Guard, I think it's inappropriate for me to decide where the balance should lie, I'd rather trust a third party. If you think Sam's edits should all be reverted, that is, of course, fine with me, but also if you think some should be kept. I have to admit, though, I particularly hated losing "convenient 'miracles'". I ran this by three friends of mine, and they all agreed that it is a loss of good writing, with no change of meaning.) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Slugfest"

John, thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you that constructive discussion is generally a far preferable way to go about editing Wikipedia, but with Jay it honestly has been much less effective in my experience than beating him into submission -- you may recall that our best progress at Israeli-occupied territories occurred after Jay and Slim lost the fight over the name and withdrew from editing for a while. Please don't imagine, however, that I "take delight" in calling Jay out -- I really regard it as a time- and energy-draining activity that in a more sensible world would not be necessary. Anyway, I think we'd already discussed this to the limit of your interest, so maybe you should think about what comments you might make to Jay in order to ameliorate the situation. Marsden 22:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, you're way out of line here. I didn't withdraw from editing because of losing any argument over the name. I withdrew because of your (and saxet's) personal attacks and I made that clear at the time. If your attitude to editing is that the way to make "progress" is to "beat" your opponents "into submission," then you'll end up winning all your battles, because all decent editors will withdraw from you at some point, until someone takes you to the arbcom and they ban you. You make editing a very unpleasant experience. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation

Hi John,

Why did you say that no citations had been made when I noted just above your comment that I had made a citation? Andjam 00:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-French Peerages

I noticed that Earl of Tankerville has its own page, formatted as an English peerage, although the first creation was presumably by Henry V of England as King of France. Should there be English peerage-styled pages for other grants made by English kings as Kings of France, e.g., the Bourchier Counts of Eu, Robert Willoughby as Count of Vendôme, etc.? Choess 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy issue

Thanks for your help with hammering out the name convention. May I ask you to look at the discussion at User_talk:Robchurch#3RR? This is an important issue and I would welcome to hear what is the prevailing current treatment of such cases. Thanks, --Irpen 23:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this was discussed but I've never seen any kind of conclusive decision and I am not aware of any general agreement. The issue is what to do with editors who abuse the 3RR rule by accompanying the reverts with small irrelevant changes in the articles so that, technically, they are OK with 3RR. Such small changes may be adding/removing brackets or changing the active to passive voice in the grammar. I've seen much of that. Recently, I posted this note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Andrew_Alexander and there was no reaction, which I assumed was due to the fact that the user was technically under 3RR but this was a 3RR in any meaningful way, if you ask me. I noticed that Robchurch recently blocked someone showing a more expansive interpretation of 3RR. I wonder, whether such 3RR avoiders are, generally, tolerated and remain off the hook. --Irpen 00:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you could help with this

User:WikiRat continues to insert fringe original research into pages dealing with Christianity in Roman Britain. Given that you are studying European history, perhaps you could come to the page Talk:Celtic Christianity to join the discussion with him. I have notified a couple other people who have been having problems with this user, and hopefully if we get enough people to try and reason with him on the same talk page, we could at least get him to follow correct original research policy.--Rob117 23:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ptolemy VII reverts

Hi! I see you reverted all my changes to the article on Ptolemy VII. Upon taking such a drastic step, I would have appreciated if you had given an explanation in the discussion page. I believe my edits were justified. There are several princes connected with this number, and so it is IMHO relevant to state that the numbering is indeed not proper: Ptolemy VI is de facto followed by Ptolemy VIII. Most likely the lay reader who looks up Ptolemy VII has done it due to this confusion and the topic should be discussed. The name Ptolemy VII now seems to be attributed to a son of Ptolemy VIII, but of course this arrangement can never be accepted without reservations since tradition bids that the numbering should reflect the chronological order.

Christopher Bennett discusses this in detail: [8] Here is an excerpt on the status of the son of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II:

Ptolemy Eupator1, son of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II2, born probably 12 Thoth year 16 = 15 October 1663, eponymous priest year 24 = 158/74, coregent with Ptolemy VI between c. 7 Tybi year 29 = 3 February 152 and 8 Phamenoth year 29 = 5 April 1525, incorporated at the same time in the dynastic cult as the QeoV Eupatwr6, probably not king or viceroy in Cyprus7, probably died before 6 Mesore year 29 = 31 August 1528 of an epidemic disease.

I have reverted back to my edit, but will of course be happy to discuss the subject further. --Sponsianus 20:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

I don't get the point jtdirl is making against my point regarding the insignificance of the implied criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on an internal policy of the Catholic Church which has yet to be announced. If Cindy Sheehan is isn't the right analogy -- who would be? Perhaps the mayor of Acapulco calling for a confrontation with the United States and President George W. Bush?

Or to put it another way, if the Bishop of New Hampshire of the Episcopal Church issued a statement supporting faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ in his own diocese, who at Agence France Presse would care? AFP and the others ran with the story because it fit their own template POV for Pope Benedict. patsw 14:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA, it finally passed today. I appreciate it ! Thanks again. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

list of sexually active popes

Hmm...this is all rather silly, it must be said, as it is irrelevant. Are there any popes who were married when they became pope? The Church does require chastity, and if no married man was ever elected, than all popes would also have been celibate. john k 04:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, at least one pope was married when he became pope. You clearly have not looked at the article or you'd know that. Michael Hardy 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Which pope was that? The article makes an unsourced claim that "some popes were married." This seems hardly good enough for you to be insulting me over. At any rate, early popes hardly count, because the rules were different then, and the "priests not married" rule only became clear cut in the western church relatively late. john k 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please learn to read!! The article EXPLICITLY STATES which one! Sheesh. Michael Hardy 01:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

... and now I've rearranged the list so they're in chronological order. Michael Hardy 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fk alert

Dear John, our friend FK (now called EffK) is back and wrecking havoc (IMHO) on the Reichskonkordat page. As usual, we won't accept my revert of his flooding the article with stuff that is either off-topic, inaccurate or POV, see here.

[9]

Maybe you can have a short look. Cheers, Str1977 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)