User talk:Bill Thayer/archive2

Archived pages

• User talk:Bill Thayer/archive1: 13 Sep 04 thru 19 Jul 05

Great War on Styles

You have already been told that this has been discussed in detail and produced bitter debate. The agreement was to leave articles as theu are for the moment until things have calmed down. That means articles will styles should have them left in, those that don't shouldn't have them put in. Since you don't don't seem to be bothered to check the archives, here are just some of the most recent bitter debates on the topic. [1] [2] Please stop trying to trigger off this edit war and let things calm down, please! (In the last few days, you have been joined by a blocked user from Canberra under false names trying to start off the war again. You may not have known what you were likely to cause, but he did. You should avoid hanging around in company like that, to be honest. You are a genuine user. He is a troll who stalks users and abuses them, hence his ban.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, thanks for the obscure link. I tried finding some such discussion, and just couldn't. Mind you, from what I've read of it so far, I find a bunch of people arguing, quite rightly, about an absurdly complex system of voting, rather than the question itself.... The fact that X is supposedly a troll should not have us all scurrying to do weird stuff because X doesn't like it; if Osama bin Ladin likes bananas, should I deny myself a banana split? One of the cardinal principles, supposedly, of Wikipedia, is that this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in democracy. Since it's quite impossible to avoid the latter — see for example the POV that passes for consensus under Adolf Hitler, Terry Schiavo, split infinitive and many other articles, complete with virulent aspersions on the minority and constant reverting, suggests that it is not — it all boils down to the fundamentally American myth that everything is solvable by democracy at the lowest denominator. Here we have a question requiring very very little specialized knowledge (everyone knows the Pope is "Your Holiness") therefore everybody feels we can chip in usefully. Majority voting on this kind of thing leads to stuff that is just plain wrong (a very large majority of people refer to ancient theaters as "amphitheaters" — it's still wrong). Wikipedia's credibility is at stake; and something this obstinately stupid, held to as policy, you tell me, to spite some poor schmuck in Canberra — doesn't make me feel good about editing anything; I mean, what good am I doing? Bill 09:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, this Jtdirl's recurring accusation vendetta against a "schmuck in Canberra" has already received overescalated measures. It has emerged that Jtdirl shoots before asking. If I heard it correctly, Jrdirl has told that he succeeded in getting some sort of long-term ban against the "schmuck" partially on basis of the "schmuck" having stalked "poor" Jtdirl. Also, our short-fused user colleague has now blocked a new user on basis of that being someone banned's sockpuppet. Of the veracity of that I do not know enough, but I realized that Jtdirl did it also clearly because they have different opinions, and I realized from earlier discussions that Jtdirl has been reprimanded for more-or-less unfounded blocks. I have seen Jtdirl's general behavior, and I can easily believe that he does things without deeper consideration, without prudent caution, hastily, without proof, often on basis of his own error, and generally in midst of hotness. (It could be proper if Jtdirl is asked not to made any admin actions in situations he has himself been involved, nor to users he himself feels to have been victim to. In such situations, it would always be better if a more objective admin makes the findings and decisions, not the one who "feels threatened" or "wants revenge".) Also this discussion here, but as well some in other cases, have alerted me to undertand that Jtdirl easily starts to enforce something he wants to think (or believes) as a decision (be it originally even not his own opinion) and is all too overeager in enforcing, even in cases where a decision has not been reached. In my opinion, styles (be they as "important" as majesties and holinesses) should not be USED by Wikipedia, but rather such should be explained in the text of the article. Having checked the referred earlier talks about the sort of great style war, I did not find anything clear as decision, as consensus. Rather, I found a number of eager proposals (from several quarters) apparently all shooted down by a dissatisfied majority, as it seems that always there could be a combination of opinion-wings to form a majority against any tangible solution. That means that all solutions will remain intangible (and impossible) :)) 217.140.193.123 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Bill,

Believe it or not I too am uncomfortable with using styles in the manner in which they are used. I strongly urged against it at the time. But it was adopted as policy. Re-opening the issue right would be akin to throwing petrol on a fire. All the protagonists would go full force into yet another nasty row, leaving no end of ill-feeling. My guess is that it is better to leave the stalemate option alone for a while: those articles that have them should keep them. Those that don't have them should not have them added. In a couple of months tempers will have cooled, some of the protagonists may have left and a calm debate may become possible. But right now doing anything that might provoke Round II of the wiki-wide edit war should be avoided at all costs. The bitterness is still too raw. People are still waiting for an opening to get back at the other side. It was a thoroughly nasty debate that descended into chaos — not helped by a disastrously mishandled vote and an attempt to interpret the results (or rather the non-results) is a very questionable way. I simply reverted the pages because I don't want to give either side the opening to say oh look. If they are breaking the 'lets do nothing' rule, we'll do it too. I don't want, like last time, to have my entire watchlist full of simultaneous edit wars. My strong advice is to leave things as they are for now. Right now if we tried to have another vote, even with a proper voting system, I doubt there would be a consensus on anything, just a reopening of old battles and scores to be settled.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I too am uncomfortable with using styles in the manner in which they are used — Yes, I read one of the things you posted to a Talk somewhere, where you said as much. Now by temperament, I usually steer far clear of any kind of controversy, as well as the endlessly unproductive dullness of such things as that vote page you sent me to (Condorcet methods and politics and hoo-ha, yipes). Unfortunately, here the sheer eccentric stupidity of the hypercorrection — omigosh, we're dissing Queen Victoria, let's all dive in and defend her against the Ostrogoths — casts Wikipedia in such a patently foolish light that I thought it worth trying to get back to standard practice. I'm currently using the excuse that (on a Memorial page for the recently dead, but I'm overlooking, I'm overlooking) there does exist a page at the British monarchy site where some dead people get their styles, to keep me out of it. But it's making me rethink what the am I doing on Wikipedia.... In sum, faced with this kind of stupid stubbornness out there, it's back to work on my own site and let them all slug it out — Best, Bill 23:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Bill Thayer, bless my soul. You and I last communicated about the time of 9/1/1, when you were feeling bad. Subsequently I reinstalled my system and lost everything, and then moved and changed my address. I have only just now arrived on Wikipedia, in the midst of a storm. First of all, Bill, thank you so much once again for your most excellent LacusCurtius site. Second, you work harder than anyone I know or have known. Third, it seems to me this Wikipedia site is democracy in action. Democracy is nothing if not controversy, bickering, recrimination and negotiation. You make deals. You keep at it. In ancient studies, where's the line between original and non-original, fact and speculation? Who said what when and was he/she the first? It isn't so easy to determine. Personally I'm glad there are some monitors here and some rules to follow. By the way, my name is David Butterfield. Best of wishes, you wonderful man.Botteville 17:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, bless your soul indeed David; I still have your e-mails by the way! (What are antiquarians for if not to collect and keep old stuff?) Yes, Wickedpedia is democracy in action, even if this is vociferously denied by its luminaries (Jimbo Wales: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy"); methinks they do protest too much — Anyhoo, there's not much I have enough of a stomach to bicker or be bickered at for, I just find it all depressing, to say nothing of horrific grammar-inducing. Best, Bill 20:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Marble sculpture, article tags in edit notes

Greetings, and thanks for your edits and interest in wikipedia. Regarding the article, I thought it best to let you examine the article to see if it now merits removal of the cleanup tag that you included, as the article has been is substantially improved since your edit.

Regarding your placement of the cleanup tag in the marble sculpture article, this took a while for me to find as you had tagged edit as slight copy edit, rather than add cleanup tag, so I had to do a binary search to find it (perhaps there is a faster way, if you know how to do this please let me know). Thanks, and best wishes, Leonard G. 14:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Much, much nicer; this is now a real article, thanx for the alert. Tnx also for the implicit advice to include "added cleanup tag" in any edit descriptor. Best, Bill 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

proposed solution to style wars

I've proposed a possible solution to end the style wars. you opinions are most welcome. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Asking for a special favour

Hi Bill, you helped me out once on a language issue. I'm still no native English speaker, but embarked on another round of policy-writing. I'd very, very, much like if you had a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). It's new, and should be able to streamline a few issues. I haven't the slightest idea whether policy-writing interests you. But I'd think it sad this one would only get discussed on language flaws. So that's why you would do me a great favour to open the page and improve the language where you think appropriate! Tx! --Francis Schonken 15:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Very little to improve on, unless people are being very picky; I did it, though. The two most important items are seldom (*seldomly does not exist, it is a barbarism); and, even more important, you meant advisable, not advisory: advisory means, speaking of a notice or panel of people, that takes on the function of advising (as in an Advisory Board), but advisable means, speaking of a course of action, to be recommended or preferred. Best, Bill 16:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Probably I made these errors not for the first time. I'll try to remember. Anyway: did you like the concept of the guideline? --Francis Schonken 16:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It all seemed quite commonsensical. My only point of contention, and you yourself seem to be somewhat on the fence about it, is in re Saint Augustine, etc; but not enough to argue about it. (I've backed off Wikipedia a lot, my own site needs constant care and improvement.) Bill 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I provided a less "dogmatic" description for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifiers not between brackets - rather a "let the examples speak for themselves" kind of approach. Looking forward to know whether this would be more appropriate in your eyes. Can also be compared with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western_clergy)#Saints - which is a text I just copied. This text explains it simple, maybe too simple, while only touching on disambiguation with "popes". Even then: if this saint/pope rule were applied Saint Peter would be wrong (...or there would be the next fight whether or not Saint Peter was the first "pope"). --Francis Schonken 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Signatures

To keep the attribution reasonably visible to administrators, I did move it to the talk page. Worst case should be a casual editor slaps the copyvio tag on the main page without checking the talk page and an administrator notes the talk page and quickly reverts it back. Of course, the ideal solution would be to rewrite the article so that it doesn't duplicate text found elsewhere.

Sorry you got caught in the crossfire, there's another editor who does the same as what you did there, but sticks it on every single page they start (pages which are much more dreadfully written than Treia and thus likelier to be spotted as copies) which is why I called it a "vanity" signature. When I came across that page doing the same, I applied the same medicine. Caerwine 15:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Spasibo za popravku

You will have no controversy from me. I only carried over what I read in Italian language, apparently with a little...uh...editorial intervention...--VKokielov 00:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Borealis

Yes, de borealis sol is ungrammatical; but I think you are prescribing more than Latin does: the ablative of i-stems is variable; compare turris/turre. Also, while I cannot think of a compact way to put this (or I would have) the intention of the anagrammatist may be to use borealis, correctly, as a genitive (although there is also the dreadful possibility that this is dictionary-Latin, ignoring inflexions entirely). Septentrionalis 16:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It was a slip which the Wiki software just would not let me correct in the little box! What I meant was not that -is words had ablatives in -i (as you point out, of course), but that -alis words did (without exception); the grammatical expression would have been "de sole boreali". For what any of this is worth, of course, because of the making of silly pseudo-anagrams to bolster even stupider theories there is no end, either in this connection or in others.... Bill 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Caesar Augustus

Thanks for correcting me on Caesar Augustus. I didn't realize that was the standard abbreviation. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ariano di Puglia

I noticed your advanced understanding of Italian, and was hoping you could help. I'm trying to finish creating all the articles from the 1911 Britannica that we still don't have. The 1911 Britannica has an entry for Ariano di Puglia, but I couldn't find it in the Italian Wikipedia or on Italian websites. The closest I can find is it:Anzano di Puglia. Can you figure out if these are the same place? Or maybe Ariano is called something new now. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-12 15:40

The place is almost certainly Ariano Irpino.

(1) Ariano Irpino is in the province of Avellino, in Campania, and its former name, according to at least one webpage ([3]) was "Ariano di Puglia"; but Anzano di Puglia is (now) in the province of Foggia, in Puglia. On the other hand quite a few provincial borders have been adjusted since 1911.

(2) Ariano Irpino is something like "24 miles" (about 39 km) E of Benevento. Anzano is about 60 km E of Benevento.

(3) Ariano Irpino is a sizable town, currently 22,000 people. Anzano di Puglia is (now) about a tenth of that, 2200. Allowing for population trends, Ariano is a better fit.

(4) Aequum Tuticum, mentioned in the 1911, is (now) thought to be S. Eleuterio, near Ariano Irpino. But then the 1911 states (my italics) that "should probably be sought at S. Eleuterio 51 M. north." Now 51 miles S of S. Eleuterio would put the article's town somewhere around Eboli — hardly E of Benevento: therefore "51" is a scangarble, probably for "5".

But:

(1) The altitude given in the Britannica article seems to be — allowing for the scangarble — around 1500 feet, which converts to about 450‑500 meters. Anzano di Puglia is at 776 (2546 feet), Ariano Irpino is even higher, at 809 meters (2654 feet). Neither one fits.

(2) Neither one of them is (now) on a rail line. But in fact the rail network has shrunk since 1911. Then again, loosely speaking, Ariano — but not Anzano — has a station not far off, about 7 km away, calling itself "Ariano".

Hope this helps. Bill 16:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Venezia.Net

Please, movie venezianet in this category "Galleries, Bloggers, Visitors, Directories" and not in "resources". ok? by Noluogo@gmail.com or Noluogo (User:Noluogo 27 Oct 2005)

Why? It's not a gallery — there's plenty of text on the history of the city, transportation, etc. It's not a blog, they're not visitors, it's not a directory (of such things as hotels, etc., although it sort-of includes some). The site is a fairly complete informative site on Venice, by people who are actually in Venice. It's a resource on a par with the kind of resource provided by non-commercial sites (like my own, for example, although I've never been to Venice, so I have nothing on Venice, but say on Umbria). Bill 21:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

fyi Bill, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Venezia . Regards Jcr2 19:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal User:167.206.174.99

Thank you for alerting me, Bill! He seems to have stopped after the warning you issued to him. If he continues, let me know and I'll block him again. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Viterbo

OK. You know I wrote one time Viterbo's history and then lost it, this is why I repeated the Etruscan note. On my guide it was cited as Surrena (?). Hope you like how the story is now. I think Papal Palace would need a page for itself, wouldn't it? Best regards. Attilio

Certo; e la stessa cosa per moltissimi monumenti del Viterbese (o forse faccio un po' troppo lo specialista?). Cmq, solamente in Italia, ve ne sono tante cose che una Wikipedia non bastarebbe. Ehm — dovrei scrivere Annio of Viterbo.... Ciao, Bill 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Celestianpower

Thank you very much for returning my edit to its rightful owner! :) --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

-

I noticed that you had been removing some vandalism and you are not a member of Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit You might want to join it. Also there is a bot that finds vandalism the bot is in #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode.net

By the way if you join you will be the 100th member --Adam1213 Talk+ 08:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with History of Rome

Ciao. Qui è Attilio! I ask for your jhelp as I have noticed you improved some of my articles about histories of the cities. I'm slowly writing my in-depth article about history of Rome (I'm from Rome), but, as English is not my first language, users have banned it (I think they're right) as badly written. Could I ask you to check it and correct freely my Bad English? My idea is: I put the infos, you improve tha article after I've written... if you've time, of course. Let me know and thanks in advance. Attilios. P.S.: I wrote also History of Naples, Neapolitan Republic (1647) and Neapolitan Republic (1799).

• Yes, you can correct my English as well as you want. No problem. I think it's stupid to consider enemy someone who corrects your errors: ot in the Wikipedia mood, isn't it? Conosco il tuo sito. Davvero ben fatto. Fammi sapere se e quando interverrai sui miei articoli. Grazie.

Barnstar

On account of your many contributions, especially to articles on places in Italy, I award you this Barnstar on behalf of the Wikipedia community. -Willmcw 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Bill

(musta hit the wrong button...) You're welcome. The Barnstar looks neat like that, maybe more of a Shedstar. No matter the size, you've earned it. Cheers, -Willmcw 13:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:64.141.49.2

Thanks, Bill. I fixed the warning you issued to this vandal. Since his vandalism is low-frequency, I'm reluctant to block at this point, but let me know if he continues. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to require registration for editing!

An excellent move! I noted it in an edit summary of yours. How can I make my voice heard in this sensible move? --Wetman 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm one of the least political of animals, and that applies to Wikipedia as elsewhere, so I haven't the faintest idea. Maybe the Village Pump or some other place to air the question; would you believe I don't even know where the Village Pump is?? My hope is that by attaching my plaintive bleat to every reverted vandal edit of mine, someone will come along who can focus those who think it's a good idea. (By the way I'll be mostly offline Nov. 17‑29, so will almost certainly not be tracking anything here during that time.)

Not the most efficient answer, wuzzit? Best, Bill 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Using a photo from your site

I added the picture of San Martino ai Monti taken from your site. If you don't agree, please delete it and correct the article. Thanks and compliments for your work. Attilios

Hmm; it's OK this time, all the more so that I haven't used that photo on my own site yet, so for now it's just going to waste – but please don't do that again! My photos are, at any rate, definitely NOT in the public domain, and I edited that part. No harm done; next time, ask me first: the odds are about even I'll say yes. Best, Bill 15:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC) (PS: despite appearances, I'm basically offline thru Nov 29, in rural Kentucky on someone else's computer a tiny bit, dial-up no cable, and not really spending much time on computers.)

Sorry, the idea behind add it without asking was, in the freely editable Wikipedia view, that you could simply remove it if you didn't agree. Thanks for the final permission, anyway. But I'm here to ask again your help for the following articles: Reggio Emilia, Pisa and Santa Maria della Spina, as I added several architectural terms I'm not so confident with. Thanks and good work. Attilios.

Here I am again! I hope one day I'll feel sufficient confident with my English to need not your help. My last masterworks (?) regards Palermo (I was there in 2000, I added a couple of my sister's pictures): Palazzo Abatellis, Santa Teresa alla Kalsa and Santa Maria dello Spasimo in the main article, and Cuba, Palermo and San Cataldo. Just a questions more: I'm hearing about this move for registration-to-edit, I think it could be a powerful anti-vandalism move (maybe asking also an e-mail as deterrent). How can I take part in the process? Thanks and best regards (P.S.: maybe one day we'll meet in Rome, who knows?) Attilios.

St. John Lateran: heads-up

I just saw your comment on the name the St. John Lateran is placed at on Wikipedia. I agree totally. It has been bugging me for months having it at a version of the name that is not used generally by English speakers (in fact few would have a clue what it was in Italian). I've proposed a vote to move the page. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano (hopefully not for too long more). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx! Went, did. Bill 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User:168.11.96.2

I am, unfortunately, not an admin, but I have taken the necessary action to have this dirt bag blocked. I'll let you know.Gator (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal blocked by User:Nlu.Gator (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:81.105.181.61

Sorry, I'm not an admin. When someone exceeds the 4 warning limit, I create an entry on the vandalism in progress page. It looks like this individual gave up after the last warning anyway. Back to the grind! Jasmol 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

File:IM000624.JPG

Gaeta's raging sea from my house

Caietae Portus

Dear Bill, Gaeta is MY city. I have a fantastic house there directly above the sea (see picture). Therefore I'm working for the article: in minutes you should be able to see it in an acceptable form (correct every typo you see, of course). The Caieatae Portus was really full of mistakes... I can't imagine how many errors we are propagating through the This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)... Probably also a beach subsection will be added. Attilios.

Oh, I know! But, shouldn't you at least mention the Atratinus mausoleum for example (I know that's real, since I have photos of it, as well as a xerox of a very detailed city guide that talks about it, both provided by a frequent visitor who loves the place), and carry over the dimensions of the Mausoleo di Planco? One of these days by the way I do hope to go to Gaeta myself: the town is on my "B" list, along with about two dozen other places in Italy like Loreto, Stilo, Pentema, Modena, S. Leo.... (My "A" list still includes such places as Venice, a number of places in Puglia, Labro, Cerveteri, it's an endless process!)

Check it. Now Atratinus have his space in Wikipedia too!! Caius Atilius Funelius.

Canoscio

That is a coincidence... I just wanted to create a link to Canoscio so it would no longer be an orphan page, I hope my link is acceptable (doing that kind of maintenence means you're often editing articles a bit outside your field of expertise) - also I just figured it was better to point that redlink to something related to its intended target, rather than keep it a redlink.

Very intriguing page on Jenkins, actually right up my alley (another coincidence) as I'm interested in the history of older towns and neighborhoods around these parts. My (currently fledgling) project here on Wikipeda, Louisville neighborhoods, should reflect that.

Thanks for the note, I look forward to seeing you around WP. --W.marsh 22:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User:209.232.148.110

Thanks; I'm not an admin, but I'll try to keep an eye out for him. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

His talk page shows a level four. I imagine the level one on his user page got put there by accident. He's made no edits since the eighth anyway. If it's a dynamic IP address, we wouldn't want to block him unless he's presently vandalising; Otherwise, we risk blocking a regular user who just happens to have that IP address at the moment. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

AIV

I saw a message you someone left last Wednesday about getting someone blocked - I'm sure you know about it already, but you don't, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism will be of use! Dan100 (Talk) 09:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't, thanks! Bill 12:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re; Artemis of Ephesus, breasts

The main article claims they're bull testicles. I really have no clue, so I probably shouldn't have adjusted the other page to fit that one. Sorry about that! But I think fixing both and citing some source would be worthwhile. Maybe it would make sense to investigate the anti-breast claims? Heehee. Anti-breast claims. --67.188.47.81 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Astronomy heads up

Hi - I edited astronomy last night to remove some excess astrology stuff, including the listing of astrology as a field of study under astronomy. My changes were quickly reverted by a self proclaimed judicial astrologer. As you have argued for rationality in the astronomy article before, I thought you would find it interesting - and help may be needed :-) Thanks Vsmith 14:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw a lot of rewording, much of it rather poor writing, but nothing much to quibble over one way or the other. The style of the anti-astrology editors is better than that of the pro-astrology editors. As for the meat of the subject, on balance, the article Astronomy should reflect what is now called "astronomy", with only a tip of the hat to the history of the discipline, in which astronomy and astrology were more or less fused; the astrology/astronomy connection would be best explored on the History of astronomy page, but I notice that that article has been taken over by the anti-astrology camp; the official POV — Wikipedia NPOV being utter nonsense, of course, and each article having its own POV determined by local majorities, the majority riding rough-shod over the minority — is anti-astrology in both. I won't step into this mess again, mostly because it is doomed to be an endless revert war; with a 5000-page website of my own, I got better fish to fry, I'm afraid. Bill 15:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Thanks and good luck with them better fish :-) Vsmith 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tower of Hercules

Bill, I've added to the article on this Galician lighthouse, and I wish you'd vet my translation of a sentence from Paulus Orosius, when you have time. It's just a minnow. Thanks! --Wetman 02:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you interested in being nominated for admin?

I noticed a message you posted about being frustrated with reverting vandals. I was surprised you weren't already an admin. Are you interested in being nominated for admin? Among other things this would give you the convenient rollback button. You seem to have made lots of edits and been active for some time. The questions is: are you interested? RJFJR 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you no; because of my own site I'm not able to give Wikipedia the time it would require. Best, Bill 11:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

195.194.119.220

just to let you know this is highbury college, not just one peep vandalising this so it could be a whole group of people, (just letting you know.) L.C.Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.119.220 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's one of the many problems with anonymous users. The vandalism problem would be taken care of immediately if Wikipedia required registration, with e‑mail (like most other bulletin boards and blogs and so on), before one could edit. They're already doing it with the creation of new articles, and the stupidity — see Special:Newpages — instantly dropped to almost zero.

As one of the serious users, you might consider registering: strange as it sounds by the way, registered users are actually more anonymous, since the ISP identifier is no longer displayed or accessible (except to high-level admins). It's an easy matter to trace a numerical ISP address using a "WhoIs" program. . . . Best, Bill 12:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Caught the guys doing it and gave them a slap. If they do it again i apologise for it :p, L.C.Z

A fair man

Hi Bill, just wanted to let you know that you are one of the few fair and decent people on Wikipedia. Good Luck - WhiskyWhiskers 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. Thank you. Bill 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Churches of Rome

Hi.

I do not understand this edit [4], in particular if the deletion of some churches was intentional. --Panairjdde 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I! I don't know how the churches came to be deleted; I've gone back and redone it, the way I thought I'd edited it.... Best, Bill 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unnoticed vandalism

I do in a way appreciate your experiment with watching a random act of vandalism to see how quickly it is reverted (or not-quickly, in the case), but I think, for the good of the project, it's about time to fix it, or tell someone about it. Consider it proved that vandalism often does not get reverted in minutes, and remember it as an example of one of wikipedia's problems, but letting vandalism go for so long only hurts the project and aids the vandals. This edit, while it didn't last for months did stay until I fixed it here more than two weeks and 16 edits later. And this was a glaringly obvious one. There are serious problem with wikipedia, but not fixing vandalism isn't the answer. Thanks. -R. fiend 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Trobriand

Thanks for your help with the French stuff. Are you certain about no accent on Denis? I have two references listed that include it. Hal Jespersen 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he just conceivably might have had some peculiar spelling of Denis, idiosyncratic to his family — and that I don't know — but the standard name Denis is accentless. (Google confirms this, if very curiously: the spelling Denis gets , the spelling Dénis — but then almost none of these latter pages in fact have Dénis, rather Denis — a Google mystery. Bill 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Deus Caritas Est

Thanks for your help with the Greek. I was having problems with your literal polytonic letters, but found a way to see them using a <span>, copied from {{polytonic}}.

Are you sure that the letters are right? They disagree with the reference (which could be wrong instead, I suppose). Thanks again. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do a lot of polytonic Greek for my own site (sample here), and type the stuff — aided by a polytonic keyboard — regularly. Your ref may have decided to transcribe Greek as monotonic, which is either post-1982 or . . . understandably, because all the jots and titles, to coin a phrase, get very tedious indeed . . . lazy; we've all done it. Still, the citation is from the Septuagint, and thus monotonic Greek is an anachronism. Best, Bill 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said in my edit summary, the cited reference has a lowercase theta, an acent on the iota, and ends with a nu... otherwise, your composition is the same. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, now that you've gone and dug up the passage, and you've noticed my own partial revert, too. I would have written ἐστι without the added -ν mind you, but then I'm not the author! Bill 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Divine inspiration, I am sure ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin

Unfortunately, I am not an admin either, so my ability to respond is this same as yours. However, if you see this user vandalise again, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to alert any logged in administrators about the vandalism. I will however, request adminship some time before Febuary, possibly even today. Prodego ^talk 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana

I read your message on my talk page. My native tongues are both French and English. I know from years of listening to French news or reading French newspapers that the article is not used. Only with US states in the masculine is the article used, so you find État du Maine, État du Maryland. For states in the feminine, the article is not used: État de Californie, État de Louisiane. Don't try to identify grammatical rules, it's just usage, a special rule for formal names I guess ("État de"). Likewise, people say "le Land de Bavière" or "la Communauté autonome de Catalogne" (no "la" article). On the other hand, of course people would say "l'économie de la Louisiane", "l'histoire de la Louisiane", etc. Compare this with French régions. People say "Région Bretagne" or "Région Picardie", that's official name, but they would say "l'économie de la Bretagne", "l'histoire de la Picardie". To make things more confusing, people say "le soleil de Provence" or "une ville de Provence" (no article), but they say "l'économie de la Provence" or "le passé de la Provence" (article). Go figure! It's just usage. Hardouin 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the "la" in the first place, and if it's you please do not feel offended. My comment was mainly addressed to people with little knowledge of French who frequently butcher French on the English Wikipedia, which is irritating. Once, at the Detroit article I saw a guy who wrote that the name of the city comes from French "d'étroit"! In fact I get upset anytime I see people butchering foreign languages, be it French, Chinese (often butchered on English Wikipedia too), or any other language. About Gironde, French people say "département de la Gironde" (article). Don't ask me why! lol. Now that I think about it, most feminine départements keep their article, but there are exceptions ("conseil général de Loire Atlantique", no article). Why? Why? Why? French is the craziest language on earth. I wonder how foreigner can learn it. Anyway, for Louisiana, you can also check this French wikipedia page ([5]). As you can see the article wasn't used. Hardouin 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Archaeological sites in Italy

Well the category exists and is useful for the larger category of Category:Archaeological sites by country, but I agree it is better for the major sites. If any I marked are insignificant, feel free to remove them. I'm just going through the lists of anything marked already in parts on the archaeology category. By the way, I totally agree with your thoughts on Wikipedia. What additionally bother me is the systemic bias against experts and lack of regard for anyone with specific knowledge. (Except of course if you knowledge is the details of video games)Pschemp | Talk 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nerva and Narni

Can you please add to the Nerva and Narni pages what your source is for stating that the birthplace of Nerva is not known? Thanks.Wjhonson 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it

I went through and found the offending links on your talk page. Tinyurl is a site that automatically shortens links for you and for some reason it was linked above. It is on the spam block list. Now that that is gone, I hope your page will get back to normal :) It seems to be working! YEah (I'm just making sure) hehe Pschemp | ^Talk 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes & diacritics

Hi Bill, replied to (& acted upon) your remark here: Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Inconsistency.

Not that I leave a note on a user talk page every time I do something in wikipedia... Came here to ask a "special favour" again (like I did before): could you have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)? I mean, both w.r.t. (ab)use of the English language and content of the thing, since I also know you're a (dia)critical expert! --Francis Schonken 13:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)