User talk:SimonP/Archive 6

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew

I've removed your 'ignore this discussion' comment from this page for what should be obvious reasons. The standard processes were followed here, the entire community was given a fair chance to say their piece, and, if you read the actual discussion, the consensus was VERY clear. Like it or not, until another discussion says different, that page should be considered an official guideline. --InShaneee 18:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's been established that wikipedia policy can change over time and thus, as long as a clear consensus can be reached, the most current discussion should be considered the most relevant, and the only one to be used as a guideline. Secondly, this discussion was hardly clandestine, as it was posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for weeks, which also means that any visitor to AfD could take a look at it. Incidentally, this is how I came across it, not because of any sort of advertisement. I have not removed your text again yet, but unless I hear a compelling argument, I plan to soon. --InShaneee 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking around to see what's been going on, I hope you forgive me for saying that I don't believe you may be acting in good faith here yourself. Without getting dragged into this mess myself, the long and short of it is simply that you were quite recently involved in a dispute with -Ril-. Also, it sounds ("He would also have contacted those who actually worked in the area") that you certainly have a vested interest in the topic as well (and for the last time, I don't CARE one way or the other on the topic, and I came across this on AfD as I'm sure others did). So, I'm still planning on removing that statement, but I would like to hear from someone not involved in all of this. I'll look into it on my own if you don't in the next few days. --InShaneee 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing my point. Now that this discussion is over, speedy reverting any such changes would be the innapropriate thing to do. Either way, I'm passing this issue off for a third opinion, but I still am going to recommend that the comment be removed. The bottom line remains: this discussion was put out for the whole community, and the results are plain to see. --InShaneee 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 1993 Canadian election article

Hi, I was wondering which edition of Canadian Democracy by Stephen Brooks you used for the article Canadian federal election, 1993. I have the 3rd edition (published in 2000), but my page numbers don't sync up. Thanks, please leave an answer on my talk page. Andrew Levine 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

I know that both the -ize and -ise spellings are used, but according to the Wikipedia MoS, the spelling of proper names should be retained. This applies to the British Labour Party, but also to the World Trade Organization (z) and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (s). There are style guides that don't see organisation as a proper name, but this is a matter of perception. The Wikipedia guideline is very clear. NATO is officially spelled with 's', the organization even explains this policy on its website. SpNeo 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO itself freely uses both. If you search the NATO website you actually get more hits for "z" than you do for "s". - SimonP 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the search results link to US-related NATO documents. If you look at the press releases, the "About"-section, the charter... you'll find that organisation is used consistently. SpNeo 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right about the fact that both spellings are considered official by the organization. I'll stop changing the spelling in articles where -ize is used. But I'd still say that the -ise spelling is the preferred one. If you have a look at the main page at [1], you'll see that it's used in the title and all the sections of the website that are easily accessible. I guess it's NATO's house style to use organisation for the public and organisation or organization in internal documents and treaties. In the FAQ section, it says:

By tradition, NATO uses European English spellings in all public information documents. Common examples where differences occur between European and North American usage are the words “defence” and “defense”, and “Organisation” and “Organization”.

They are not quite right about that though, organization can also be used in Commonwealth English.SpNeo 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League template

Hi, then why did some countries such as Jordan and Tunisia already have the template to begin with? Some of the countries already had the template on there, so I figured I should add it to the rest of the Arab League nations to be consistent.

Also, why is the Gulf Cooperation Council template allowed but the Arab League template is not? This is double standards.

Thanks (MEA707 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Arbitration case

I've opened a new arbitration case against you. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Simon, an editor has been changing the order of the results of an election in riding article from the current standard (ordered by the number of votes the candidates received) to alphabetical order. I think we should develop a consensus. Given your past interest in these articles, your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Election results. Ground Zero | t 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi SimonP/Archive 6, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

with your unfortunate arbitration case. The problem here is that there are three camps: people who have no problem with the articles, the mergists (who I have no problem with, though the merges will almost certainly have to be reversed in time), and the deletionists. And unfortunately some of the mergists have come under the misimpression that -Ril- is leading a campaign to merge bible verses. e.g. here. You'd think his six or seven attempts to delete all of them wholesale would clue them in. Anyway, best of luck and don't get too frustrated. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon: This is a minor point really, but I do think you should recuse yourself from arbitrating in a case against yourself. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Exactly how scholarly or amateur are those references you use for your Bible verse articles?

The article for 6:2 says:

There is no evidence that the Pharisees, and others seen as hypocrites, actually blew upon trumpets to publicize their giving, and Fowler feels it is unlikely they would have been so brazen. Lewis thinks the reference might be to the autumn public fasts, which would have been accompanied by the blowing of horns. Schweizer speculates that when the list of donors were read off in the Temple that especially large ones may have been accompanied by horns. Hendriksen thinks it unlikely that this would have been allowed. The expression "toot your own horn" for self-praise likely derives from this verse.

I've done a tiny tiny bit of googling on this and found out that:

trumpet is the word that the Talmud uses to refer to alms-boxes. In fact, the 13 alms-boxes in the Jewish Temple were shaped like trumpets (Sheḳ. v. 1 and Yer. 49, 3; 50b. 'Er. 32a and Giṭ. 60b, c.f. Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews." xix. 61).

"Even the trumpet-shaped alms-holders seem to have been retained in the Church until the beginning of the fourth century, judging by the term conchœ"

"At any rate it is with an allusion to the trumpet-like form of the alms-box that Jesus said (Matt. vi. 2 et seq.)"

It's blatently used by Matthew as a deliberate parallel, and yet not one of your sources seems to mention it, if what you describe them as thinking is anything to go by. What they have come up with seems to be pure speculation - original research (on their part) if you will - and appears to have no basis in even the tiniest piece of academic research - I mean, how difficult is it to read the Talmud, or ask someone who has, or has done research on it, if you are an academic in the subject and really interested in finding out what the Jews did in regard to alms of the time? Especially when you consider that the information I found above is corroborated by some kind of famous Jewish public domain encyclopedia that's been around for decades.

And, while I'm asking questions, why are almost all of your sources Protestant? That hardly seems balanced to me. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. the expression is "blowing your own trumpet".

P.p.s.

You wrote (in the article):

"Fowler notes that some scholars argue that synagogue cannot here refer to the religious building, as charity was not distributed there"

This is the most stupid reasoning ever. Alms were collected at religious institutions, just as they are today all over the world. Of course it is referring to synagogues - its a reference to alms being collected in a synagogue - kind of absolutely totally obvious. Except maybe people whose reasoning is so clouded by religion that they are unable to accept that synagogues and charity could possibly go together. Do you know what they did with the alms that they collected? According to Josephus, the Talmud, and several other Jewish references (google can tell you a lot very quickly if you ignore all but the academic sources), they gave them out to synagogue schools to educate the poor. I.e. alms were distributed to synagogues - that was a major purpose of the alms - to educate the poor. So Fowler is doubly incompetant, and his/your use of "some scholars" seems like a weasly way to hide original research!!!!.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you go "Fowler/Albright/Bob/Dave/Alice thinks it means that people should X Y Z God A B C heaven", rather than "Protestants/Catholics/Whatever generally/officially/rarely think it means that people should X Y Z God A B C heaven" all the time? E.g. "The verse does not literally insist on pacifism" rather than "Although pacifists view the verse as being a clear indication that Jesus wished people to uphold strong and radical pacifism, others disagree". It strikes me that you are trying to assert a POV by selectively mentioning the viewpoints of commentators that agree with you or are straw men, and failing to mention the general views held by large religious groups on the matter. That's certainly one reason I can see for wanting to keep the articles split up into tiny verses so that there are thousands, rather than all in one noticable place that people can keep watch on. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Countship" (sic)

User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deryni category

Thanks for categorizing my entries. Gaah, I didn't even think there was a category out there for it. I have more to enter to finish off the line of Kings and to add the pretenders, then I want to go back and add a succession box on each page and fill in the red links. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. - SimonP 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUFORN Cleanup

Hi SimonP,

you've tagged the AUFORN article for cleanup which considering the content at the moment should probably be immediate deletion. I'm trying to introduce some Wikipedia newbies to editing Australian Ufology but we are having difficulty with the original contributor of the article, User:vufors. The newbies were met with IIRC 7 revisions in the space of 6 hours with no negotiation and immediate spam and vandal warnings to frighten them off, which it did until I stepped in.

The info they want added I placed in the AUFORN article to be edited for inclusion in the Aus Ufology article when things settle down. Unfortunately a new user User:auforn4u who I think is IP 202.83.73.188 also associated with the user vufors has defaced the page with inappropriate links to Amazon products and a long list of personal information they seem to have lifted from the AUFORN Yahoo membership. They also placed personal info and details on the Talk:AUFORN page concerning myself and are trying to stir up trouble.

I was going to wait it out for a bit and try negotiating with vufors but this recent vandalism is rather outrageous. Could you please step in and help sort it out?

--Zeug 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefman

(The last post seemed like self-promotion to me. No need for that on Wikipedia.) You guys have been blanking others for this reason like deputy Mayor Mario Ferri. How can you justify an interim local Concillor like Shefman be more worthy of a page than the Mayor, deputy Mayor, regional counillors or even "full-time" local counillors? Shefman's page is nothing more than a self promotion posted by his son and updated by himself.--69.156.151.42 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basicly you are saying this article of a "interim" councillor deserves to have the self promotion content but all other more senior positions "full-time councillors, regional councillors, Deputy Mayor and Mayor don't deserve this as you guys keep blanking there article. Also, why do you keep taking the "interim" portion out of this article to give the false impression that he is a full term councillor? If you insist that this article stays as is then revert all the other more senior articles. --69.156.151.42 16:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring the Shefman article, we also need to keep an eye on the Sandra Racco article, the guy has been blanking that one as well. pm_shef 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Hi, I hope you are not planning on indescrimnate reversion of my edits. It seems this is just the sort of behaviour that you are accused of in arbitration. Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting. If you want ot discuss the meanings of the word, you had only to ask, rather than just say "I am reverting a few of your edits" then block reverting. Rich Farmbrough. 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The distinction is not as clear cut as perhaps might first seem the case.

OED agrees that legal requirement is included in "oblige" (as opposed to obligate), in its lengthy articles. More accessibly the American Heritage Dictionary says " To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means." Mirrim Webster has "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance".

Furthermore Webssters 1828 made the reverse distinction, saying of "Obligate" "Until recently, the sense of this word has been restricted to positive and personal acts; and when moral duty or law binds a person to do something, the word oblige has been used. But this distinction is not now observed."

There are of course cicumstances where "obligate" is to be preferred, in direct quotes and in the technical senses of the word from finance and more importantly biology.

Rich Farmbrough. 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Obliged" versus "obligated"

Hi. You might be interested in this: "Obliged" versus "obligated". --P3d0 13:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help

I appreciate your help with my autocross disambiguation page. Would you be willing to look over my Geo Storm article and offer some constructive criticism? Evenprime 15:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

This maybe of value:

[7] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:

"Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian -> Islamic.

I noticed you have been changing back the edits of an anon editor who keeps changing Iranian to Islamic in articles. I see you are a trusted editor so I have been trying to change back any more of these edits I see, mainly now from 217.17.241.51. Zootsuits 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-stub inquiry.

Good day,

Thanks for the correcting the empty "Kansas" link at the Ottawa Board of Education stub.

I also noticed that you removed the stub tag from the article; could you please explain why you took that action? Folajimi^(talk)

My arbitration case

Hi SimonP,

As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hope you will look examine the actual issue carefully before placing your vote. At least do take a look at some other proposed proposed decisions in the Workshop.

I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy per e-mail a couple of times, apparently without success.

I hope that arbitration case stays on the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.

With best regards, -- Heptor _talk 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Do feel free to contact me either on my talk page or per e-mail if I left something unclear. -- Heptor _talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gonomad linkspam

Hi. I noticed you removed a lot of the spam from 71.195.200.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just wanted to say that he's still at it, and I gave him a {{spam}} today. If you'll give such people the {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, and {{spam3}} templates, it'll help give them the message that they are not allowed to spam us and will not be permitted to get away with it. Sometimes people so warned simply give up.

You might also like to check out the linkspam brigade. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match Point

Could you please follow-up at Talk:Match Point about that article's subtext section? Thanks. Kayaker 11:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dead End Pages

Aaarghhhh!! You've erased all my progress on the WP:DEP!!! Just kidding. :D James084 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Hill moves

You were quite right to move Grant Hill back to Grant Hill (basketball) and Grant Hill (disambiguation) back to Grant Hill after I cut-and-pasted them to new locations. The move is legitimate, I feel, but the methods I undertook were not. So I put it up on Wikipedia:Requested moves. The reason I didn't do that in the first place is because there was already a move vote on the page, which passed, but someone unilaterally moved it back, so I figured (wrongly) there was no harm in cut-and-pasting. OK, well, that's all I had to say. Thanks for your time, and if you'd like to discuss the matter further, please drop a line on my talk page. :) StarryEyes 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpa Discucssion expansion

Hi SimonP

I'm the author of most of the discussion on Alpa cameras.

I'm wondering what you'd like expanded.

I had edited the Alpa subject to include information about the Japanese Alpa cameras. Someone else edited my text to indicate these cameras had no connection to the actual Swiss Alpa company. According to my information, this was incorrect - after citing a book I feel is reliable, and waiting a week for rebuttal, I corrected the main Alpa page, and incorporated references.

I'm new to this, so hopefully I'm following protocol.

Regards,

Mark

Hostility

Can you please explain to me your hostility and why you persist in deleting everything I do around here??? I would like an answer.WHEELER 18:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links are just that External Links. I realize in the tight-parameters of Wikipedia, original research is not allowed. That is why I work in Wikinfo and not here. My work has a sort of permanence there that it wouldn't stand a chance on at Pseudopedia.
External links are for more information that Wikepedia will not allow as an article. I present those links so people have room to grow and learn. Let them be the judges. I don't see where you judge and executioner of "what is allowed or what is not allowed". Wikipedia says it is "open content". There is no problems with external links. The ones I have posted are legitimate areas of facts.
Furthermore, you complain of quality of material "not good enough". Things do improve over time. Quality can always be improved. That is what wikipedia is all about. It never asks for perfection right off the bat and for you to take this stand is hypocritical.
Now you can certainly waste precious server equipment and time with your childish games--that is your perogative. I hope other monetary contributors see you as you really are.WHEELER 20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you are not a classicist. You have NO ability to judge content of classical subjects. I, on the the other hand have proven my capability and ability thoroughly.

Second, from the rules on external links "Pages that contain a substantial fraction of factually inaccurate material or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to if there is scholary or scientific concensus about the subject and especially if the unverified original research contradicts this concensus" Notice the word: "unverified", the two links have extensive references. It is verifiable. Next, this all comes out of Prof. Muller's book. This is a professor who Prof. Werner Jaeger called "brilliant" a hundred years later. So it is NOT even original research.

Third, you accuse with "A website that you own or maintain", Wikinfo is NOT a private site nor is it maintained by me. It is a public site. It is a Wiki site. Just as valid as Wikipedia.

Fourth, Do you wonder why you need so much server space?? Why do you need so much money to run Wikipedia, is that most of the trouble here at Wikipedia is "edit" wars. This is simply caused by the Wikipedia policy itself but mostly by immature people. You are not a classicist, you could care less. I know that you are a British Republican and you have your POV which you seek to "protect" and I think you are just a tad bit hypocritical in that your POV is the basis of censorship. I have found with dealing with you that anything that threatens your British republican viewpoint---gets deleted.

The work I present is necessary for the understanding of Classical millieu. Which is lacking in the Wikipedia articles. It is fine if you don't want them here on Wikipedia, there is no problem with it being an external link. Wikipedia and Wikinfo exist to INFORM people. that is my purpose as well. I write about obscure things that people would be interested to know.

The Articles I put as External links ARE the NPOV to the slant of the Wikipedia articles.WHEELER 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "because no one else believes that "Doric Crete is the progenitor of much of the institutions found in Doric Sparta." Now if you read down further you will find that I quote extensively from Prof. Karl Otfried Muller's TWO VOLUME WORK on the Dorians and their History. What have YOU READ??? So again this is baloney.

Will Durant who has done more work than you quotes Pausanius who said "Most Greeks believed that the institutions of Sparta came from Crete". Here is another source---a Classical source.

You are perfectly alright to go to Wikinfo and place an article for an opposing viewpoint. You can do that. That is the beauty of Wikinfo.

Secondly, I can not help if there is not a lot of interest out there for Doric History or their Culture. I can not help the situation out there that there are more people interested in that. I can not help if I am the ONLY contributor of those facts. It is beyond MY CONTROL. Wikinfo is open to all--you can also edit and contribut articles over there. There is not too many contributors there or here that can contribute to Classical studies; esp on Doric culture. So you complain about things, I have NO control over. (Remember, Wikinfo has different rules than Psuedowiki here. The ariticles can be written as SPOV.

Laconophobes like yourself, Paul Cartledge, Victor Hanson and Septronolis don't care for that culture and furthermore downright hate it. How can truth be written by Laconophobes? It is an oxymoron.

The Cretan/Spartan connection is an necessary article for understanding Classical culture and Doric culture. It is a necessity. I understand that it can not be allowed under Wikipedia rules that is why I am making it an external link. But you are not a classical scholar and you are not qualified to make any decision on it, but I guess that doesn't bother you nor the powers that be.WHEELER 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:votingtemplates

Thank you for alerting me, as I did not realize that at the time I created the templates. I will put a message up on the page I am using them on to alert the users not to use them elsewhere; I do ask, however, that you allow me to continue using them until the debate on this page is over, as the templates are the only things showing the votes. I apprecite your compassion in advance. Thank you! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeler

I debased the Doric truth of banausos, so I might not be an improvement. In any case, while I'm glad to help revert, I'm already dealing with two True Believers Septentrionalis 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shefman AfD

Hey, someone recently nominated the Alan Shefman article for deletion. This is despite the fact that the community had previously agreed that all members of Vaughan City Council are entitled to Wiki Articles. I'd appreciate if you voted to keep in order to maintain the integrity of the Vaughan Council series of articles. pm_shef 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As per your comments on my talk page, yes Wikipedia has always aspired to be better than Britannica. However, it has never been Wikipedia's goal to do so by becoming Brittannica. Wikipedia is and was a unique kind of opportunity for and by all, not an encyclopedia to be dominated by a handful of obssessive personalities as it is becoming. Wikipedia will never become better than Brittannica at doing what Brittannica does, it will become better by winning at its own game. It is the openness of Wikipedia that makes it great; an oppenness that is disappearing. LaRevolution 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, I do have a fairly good idea about what are and are not encouraged practices, but I do not view spreading my message as spam, and there is no other way to spread my message. LaRevolution 15:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amyloblast

I noticed you edited this article once just recently, and thought you would be as good as anyone to tell. I think the article is meant to be talking about ameloblast, which as we can see already has its own article (though granted a stub). Now, I do not know everything concerning tooth development, but when I added the info to the tooth development article I never ran across anything called an "amyloblast", but there are for certain ameloblasts. Maybe amyloblast is a mispelling or an alternative spelling? In any case, would you agree that amylobast should be deleted or used as a redirect to the older article, ameloblast? - Dozenist talk 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ment Kao Pechita

Thanks for finding that Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years redirect - that was good detective work. GRuban 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russell Hotel (Ottawa)

The LAC seems to believe the fire and the demolition were both in 1927... and the extlk at the article gives a 404. Lupo 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is edit warring.....Again

Zeri is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:

[8]

ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog link - LVM Instititute Link

SimonP - I looked into the CSB project as mentioned on Talk:Somalia. I wholeheartedly agree with the principles. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with the LVMI link. I would love to hear your thoughts. In any case I won't reference it again. You are an administrator. If a reference made by multiple users is so far from policy you would know better than me. Cheers. HSchickel 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the quick response. I'm still a bit confused about the rules. WP Guide...External Links seems to allow POV linking if it's referenced in the article or as a source or for further reading. Somalia is currently a very interesting place to many people. Economists are especially interested. The majority of them have a strong POV. It seems we could write about topics that contain POV in an NPOV way. I'm curious, if the article read something along the lines of,

"AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" and other "AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" w/ references and external links for backup...

Would that be acceptable? Or does Somalia's status as a country mean POV topics cannot be discussed in even an NPOV way? I'd love any suggestions you may have for a proper (CSB/NPOV) way of handling this type of information in articles (especially if some articles work under more stringent rules and this is an example). HSchickel 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ghost

Why did you alphabetise Amanda Ghost in Category:British musicians as "host"? JIP | Talk 07:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]