User talk:Fastifex

Question about Body Modification Edits

Fastifex, I'm about to do a total re-write of the whole page (I've been workign on this for about a week now, with my notes in notepad form.), I want to incorporate some of your material and remove some of it, as well, as some is redundant or NPOV (not much, but a little). Some of your changes, like adding a controversies related to body modification are in my notes, and I really like the edits you've done there. Are you going to continue to make edits, or should I just keep on going with my project? Glowimperial 13:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Sir,

As body modfication is in no way part of my core interests (history and institutions; but we Flemish intellectuals are somewhat of the uomo universale type, as a medieval Latin professor literally called me), while you seem to be an expert, I am delighted to read you find at least some of my contribution worthwile, and even contunued my experiment of suscinct definitions with typology links- I find them usefull, as many laymen probably will.

Since I am in no hurry to return to the subject, I suggest you go ahead soon with any additions and even restructuring if worthwile. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the NPOV abbreviation (I started my account ths week, most of my already numerous contributions since april were anonymous on an IP) so I'm at a loss what you mean there, while redundancy can of course be tackled with my approval in principle - even though nobody needs approval, I appreciate your courtesy.

As I started re-examining the article, I formulate these remarks :

• you linked to "stretching", deleting my few lines on the subject, but there was nothing on body modification there - I made an attempt and linked it to your article (surprisingly the word neck links to Padaung, a usefull link though, which a quick google allowed me to elaborate a bit on too)
• why has the reference to needle heals been eliminated?
• I dare hope you find a way to include the distinction whether a body modification is reversible
• may I suggest you elaborate the Sources & References section, listing your treasure trove, as only the expert can be expected to be able to? This naturally goes for all valuable articles (In confess I don't allways do so myself, but then I do intend to return to the subject later and better my ways).

Sincerely, Fastifex

Anon!

Oi, its the artist formerly known as the best anon without an account. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Physical punishment

Hi Fastifex

First off, let me say that I have very limited knowledge on the subject matter.

When I converted physical punishment into a redirect it was to avoid something called content forking, that is a separate article on the same subject set up in order to provide a different point of view. If you read the physical punishment article and corporal punishment article, you will see that they are very similar, for instance the physical article has the intro

Physical punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain or other bodily suffering intended as correction or punishment (see that article for general considerations and alternatives). The practice is generally held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and is therefore intended to be limited and justifiable (for (re)education, justice etc.), rather than intended to totally subdue the will of the victim (as for interrogation or pure terror). Severe or prolonged forms of corporal punishment are, however, more or less indistinguishable from torture.

while the corporal article has the intro

Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment. Historically speaking most punishments, whether in judicial, domestic or educational settings were corporal in basis. The practice is generally held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and is therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to totally destroy the will of the victim. Severe or prolonged forms of corporal punishment are, however, more or less indistinguishable from torture.

The way I saw it when I made the redirect, the two articles were on the same subject, they were structurally virtually identical and therefore prime candidates for an immediate redirect. Since the corporal punishment article was the older of the two articles, I redirected the physical punishment article.

My view is still that the redirect at physical punishment ought to stay as a redirect, and that the discussion on how the subject should be covered should be done at corporal punishment. I appreciate that this can be a very controversial topic, at least far more controversial than the subjects I like to work on (chess and transportation). However, making a fork at another title has some very serious downsides, most importantly it is confusing to the readers who use the encyclopedia, and it is therefore strongly discouraged.

I realize that discussions with other people on controversial topics can be tough and energy draining. Since I know very little about the subject, I can only provide some general advice.

• The formal rule on edit conflicts is the three revert rule. Except for simple vandalism, which is quite narrowly defined, no person is allowed to make a revert on the same article more than three times within a 24 hour period. Even administrators have run afoul of this rule, it is the reason for most blocks against established users who don't usually engage in vandalism.
• WP:COOL has some words of wisdom for handling conflict.
• On a hot topic like this, I think that an article RFC (Requests For Comment) might be appropriate. Add a link to Talk:Corporal punishment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law, and provide a short description of the conflict.
• If you at any point start to feel so angry that you have trouble thinking clearly: stop. Remember don't take what happens at Wikipedia too personally. I will refer you to a piece of advice I got from Rossami, who gave it to me here when I was feeling mad and frustrated at foolishness, breaches of policy and other terrible things. Following this is easier said than done, but I think that it remains good advice.

For the moment, that is what I have to offer. I won't convert the physical punishment article into a redirect a second time, but I won't be surprised if someone else chooses to do so. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to give me a line on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply re Bush hazing

Hi, Sorry for removing that information. I guess it looked to me like a typical frivolous edit (I didn't recognize your username). Also, on researching, I found that the hazing was done by President Bush's fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon - not by Skull and Bones - so it may indeed have been done to freshmen. I added a link so that those who might remove it in the future can verify for themselves. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. -- Pakaran 21:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Additions to Aden Protectorate

Your recent additions to Aden Protectorate are useful but they appear to all be sourced to WorldStatesmen. Although WS is often a good source, it has numerous gaps and errors on South Arabia. (FOTW also sources it). Do you know of any other confirmation source of the state names and treaty dates? LuiKhuntek 07:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since the link to your user name is hellish red (a typo? a former account? - I never met such a case- maybe you never created your own page?), I can only hope you read this here, but anyway - your vigilance is appreciated, and yes it is definitely wise to look for more sources. Unfortunately Christopher Buyers' amazing website RoyalArk does not treat the former Yemeni polities yet (only the former imamate itself), but I do know of another website of interest- perhaps even more unfortunately, http://www.almanach.be/central.html Almanach de Bruxelles is no longer free, they now charge a suscription fee I'm not eager to pay until I'm confident I'm ready to get the maximum out of it in one go (best value seems $50 for a year; there's enough other sources to work while they probably work on the gaps they had, and update), but when it still was free I had the foresight to save a few megabyte of data on most (allways non-European) dynastyies they covered (I'll always regret I didn't get round to India, the second largest number of dynasties after Indonesia, which has many 'stub-like', so I guess India would have been even more data, but I saw no warning they would turn paying, so I thaught there was time). I don't have time right now, but I will check my archieved version (I wonder what's the copyright status- am I allowed to mail someone -you might be interested, but do provide a working link then to your page or talk page- what was free then? I hope so) I haven't got round to checking the relevant data, but certainly intend to see whether this is usefull in our Aden-case Fastifex 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Sorry, it's User talk:LuiKhuntek LuiKhuntek 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire

I notice you have recently edited Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire. One problem mentioned in the article is that "such a large empire inevitably sees many changes over several centuries, any listing is either a freeze in time or, as below (still incomplete), a compromise concerning overlaps and other alterations." In an attempt to systematize the listing, I made a chart based mainly on Donald Edgar Pitcher’s An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire (1972) that is a list of provinces in 1609 (near the height of the Empire’s power). The chart includes Turkish names, dates of foundation, current location, and other notes. I followed this with a list of provinces that disappeared before 1609 and provinces that appeared after 1609. Finally, to reflect the administrative reforms of 1864 and the decline of the Empire, I have a list of provinces in 1877.

This information would remove little of the information currently in the article but would be a reorganization of the article that would change its appearance (e.g., end the Christian/Muslim division of provinces). Because information on this topic is scarce and sometimes contradictory, I wanted to run this by you before posting the changes. Please give comment or objection at User talk:LuiKhuntek or the article's talkpage. Thanks. LuiKhuntek 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire at User talk:LuiKhuntek. I agree with your concerns about the need for more information on the provinces. However, I think that anything beyond the basics should be posted separately at independent pages for each of the provinces. (The same with Aden Protectorate -- I already created several pages there but haven't finished [e.g., Lahej, Upper Yafa])

The problem with a systematic master list of Ottoman subdivisions is that there were so many changes over the years and there sometimes conflicting accounts of names and dates, even in the original sources (see Pitcher’s An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire for details). Because of this, the "snapshot in time" method may be a good starting point. I will post something in a few days.

PS - And I have removed the Aden Prot. info you forwarded. Thanks again for that. LuiKhuntek 04:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Intendente

Hello! If you got the information for the article Intendente from a website, can you please put a link on the talk page? This would be helpful to other editors. Cheers and Happy Editing! Banana04131 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your question is utterly justified, except that the best place for a link is of course the Sources & References section at the end of the article, where I intended to put it (but apparently forgot to fill it in- now done, but I'ld spot that anyhow). These first data storages are from [[1]] (see each present country). I realize this is at present a rough mess, deservedly tagged, but much more will follow; as the title is originally French Larousse, printed in French, would be my first guess for more Fastifex 18:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 11% for major edits and 18% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia will not allow double redirects. If you redirect to a redirect page the second redirection will not be taken. Make sure the redirect links to the original article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to this once more, as you did the same again today with the French Cochinchina redirect. - Dammit 17:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I was a little bit too fast there with reverting your edit, I noticed you moved the main article now. - Dammit 08:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems I must point out that I am aware some of my redirects only 'work' indirectly, which is usually the result of the way they are made: I see a red link, which is a double real problem (the reader can't get to the information, the contributor is in danger of erroneously creating a parallel article), so I lay a chain of 'probing' links till I either find an existing article to link to or know I have to create it (often I have a good source at hand). This solves both problems, and often on more counts then the original red link, as none of the links is left red; if a reader doesn't care enough to click a few times to get at the goodies, he's apparently not hungry enough, so that's not a serious problem in my eyes. By the way, it turns outthere are Bots who seem to specialize in hunting 'double redirects' to cut them short, and they seem to find them faster then I'ld like in some cases as not every redirect is to a synonym, some other would be better left as they constitute de facto stubs. Fastifex 09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV warning re. emperor

Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so breaches Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. --Francis Schonken 09:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Primates

Thanks for the information. I must first of all apologize for a perhaps too hasty correction I have just made to the page you referred me to. There are two Primates of Ireland. I do not know when it was agreed that there should be two. In the second half of the seventeenth century the two archbishops, one of whom was Saint Oliver Plunkett, were disputing in correspondence with the Holy See about which of them had the right to the title of Primate. Now it is pacifically accepted that both have the title, and that the Archbishop of Armagh has precedence. Too late, I remembered that the section concerns those who were given special seating at "the Vatican Council". (Which Vatican Council?) Perhaps you have access to more precise information about whether both were specially accommodated at the Council. If either archbishop was a cardinal at that time, it was the Archbishop of Armagh, whom you mention as being given the special seating: I would therefore have thought that the place for a Primate would have been assigned to the Dublin archbishop.

You missed Argentina in your list. The Archbishop of Córdoba obtained from the Holy See the title of Primate (I do not know in what year) on the grounds that it was the first diocese in the country. If the Archbishop of Buenos Aires had known of the request in time, he would have objected that Buenos Aires was the first archdiocese in the country.

I must say I think the article is quite wrong to attribute some sort of honorary title of Primate to sees merely on account of their importance within a country, such as Sydney in Australia. As I see it, only the Holy See can explicitly or implicitly grant the title of Primate, just as only the Holy See can grant the honorary title of (Latin) Patriarch, and just as the explicit or implicit recognition of the Holy See is an essential element in the definition of an autonomous particular Church, or Ecclesia (ritualis) sui iuris (canon 27 or the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). Buenos Aires is certainly the most important see in Argentina and was so also when Córdoba got the title, but even more certainly it is Córdoba that is the primatial see.

In the Catholic Church hierarchy page, would it be better to replace "The Latin-Rite title of Primate is in some countries given to the (arch)bishop of a particular (usually metropolitan, oocasionally exempt) see" with "The Latin-Rite title of Primate is in some countries attached to a particular archdiocese"? Or even return the text to how it was before the to my mind quite unnecessary specification about the kind of see (metropolitan, exempt, archiepiscopal) was added? My main problem with the present text is the word "exempt". I understand what you mean by it, but most people do not. The phrase "occasionally exempt" will mislead them even further into thinking it means that a primatial see must be a "metropolitan and from-time-to-time exempt" see. Can you fix it?

Returning to the page on Primates, I honestly think it is nonsense to say Primates are on a level with Eastern-Church Exarchs within the Catholic Church. Apostolic Exarchs are obviously on the same level as Apostolic Vicars, Bishops of titular sees appointed to look after an area that has not yet been raised to the level of eparchy/diocese. Patriarchal Exarchs are surely no higher. Would it not be better simply to remove all this most unsure talk about alleged rules of precedence?

That is my opinion: that both the precedence question and the attribution of the title of Primate to archbishops of sees that have never been granted the title should be removed from the article. But, as I prefer to prune my gradually growing watchlist rather than add to it articles I prefer to let go their own perhaps inaccurate way, I leave editing to you.

I see now a link to an article on Exarchs. However, the time I have spent writing this has taken from me any wish to look it up. That article too I prefer to let go its own way. Lima 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hereditary title; Court appointment

Can you check my articles on Hereditary titles and Court appointment for accuracy, and see if there's anything that could be added? Walton monarchist89 07:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Although your request is most flattering, I'm afraid I will remain for a while to pressed for time to oblige properly. Hereditary titles definitely can be elaborated, but that takes serious consideration. As for court appointlment, I honestly feel that doesn't make much sense as a topic per se; it would be better to turn it into a redirect, and work in the titles in an article that allows to put them in context - Noble court seems an excellent choice, since many terms are not specific to one court, or even ambivalent in time and/or space. It would be best to create subsections before throwing in a host of titles, so as to give the reader an idea what belongs together. As I'm hoping you might be willing to do some usefull, but somewhat tiedeous work in the field of court titles, may I suggest also someone could do an excellent job going over the (mainly red) links in Medical Household and create/elaborate the necessary stubs, all to be marked with the category Positions within the British Royal Household, and -if not to specific for non-British equivalents- also Court titles; many -including some other already in the category- need to be turned unisex, as both previous and presumed future Monarchs are Kings: the best way is probably to create the article as a redirect form the form including Queen to one with King, and specify both possibilities in the text of each stub. Are you game? Fastifex 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I created both the Hereditary titles and Court appointment articles in response to red links on other related pages; although they may not make that much sense as topics, I just thought a page of some kind would help to 'fill in the gaps'. Most of the content of both pages consists of links anyway. As for the Medical Household page, I can take a look at it and see what I can do. Walton monarchist89 09:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Punishment article and user:Bignole

I see we are in agreement that Bignole's weird def of punishment, which excludes retribution, is invalid. There doesn't appear to be any point to talking with him anymore, he's just trolling for a fight. You can remove any weird def he has put in, and I will support you. Or, if you prefer, we can get an admin involved. StuRat 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

One should be mentally very sick indeed to agree with Bignole on anything I ever wrote from his hand. Either he enjoys getting on everybody's nerves (a psycho form of vandalism) or his mind is utterly poisoned, as occurs more often with some 'Wickedpedians' who often terrorise pages related to physical punishments- there's no reasoning with them, and in my experience one gets preciously little support from reasonable Wikipedians- your noble intentions are therefore greatly appreciated. I can only hope that to be coincidence, but my experience with some admins (while I have nothing but praise for others, like Essjay) in such matters aren't very encouraging, some actually make things worse, blindly adhering to mindless literal versions of conventions as if it were a constitution or even abusing one's position as Adam Bishop did to me by lying blatantly in order to ban me himself for using the self-explicatory word countship (definitely in articles concerning the feudal era he's party to) in stead of the ambivalent county, while I didn't even re-revert; so I'm not leaning to starting a procedure, which I fear will only be a waste of time, but if you do I will of course testify the truth about Bignole, if the point isn't made best of all by his own unencyclopaedic hate prose- his last 'answer' was amusingly pathological, all ad hominem and besides the point; however it may be more effective to simply ignore him on Talk and see if he simply gives up as his ausience seems to loose interest, I found that worked better the previous round. Fastifex 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can wait and see, too. I notice there is another person on our side confronting Bignole now. However, his "Psychology" section definition is still at odds with the rest of the article, and common sense. StuRat 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Boy edit

Look at the bottom of Talk:Boy for a comment on the headers of the Boy and Man articles stating inconsistency. Georgia guy 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit you made recently is a link to a dis-ambiguation page. Are you familiar with the style guidelines of dis-ambiguation pages?? Please read them. Georgia guy 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I reverted to the sensible link of Man and reworded the text above in the Man article. However, I want to know what to do with the phrase "in contrast to...woman". Do you know what to do with it?? Georgia guy 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert of MoS edits at Consulate

Hello. For edits[2] to disambiguation pages, please refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Also, if you disagree so vehemently with those descriptions perhaps you might consider updating the target pages, from which they were copied. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 08:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutiny

What’s the reason for having another encyclopædia’s text on military law within Mutiny? I understand that mutiny is one of the classical offences in that field, but would a detailed treatment on military law in general not fit much better in Military law or a related article (e. g. Military law in the United Kingdom, or some such thing, or even History of military law in the United Kingdom), rather than the article on mutiny specifically? —xyzzy_n 10:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Any comments? Otherwise, I’ll remove it again… —xyzzy_n 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you bannish every matter covered by military law to that article, it is in danger of becoming the size of a law library, needlessly. Logically you should then do the same with other fields of law. Mutiny is a crime, ergo defined and to a large extend dealt with by law. If you say any passage not releant to mutiny, remove it; otherwise, I don't see why any explanation should be given to treat a subject under the more precise heading. Fastifex 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit confused; I thought I did remove the not very relevant passages the last time I edited the article. As far as I can tell, the Britannica text mostly deals with the transition of control over the armed forces from the sovereign to Parliament and constitutional issues with laws pertaining to the armed forces. All directly relevant content which I found I have summarised in the first paragraph of that section. Did I miss something? As for the rest, where it is relevant to mutiny, it is not exclusively so, but rather in the same way as to any other offence specific to the military, and therefore better treated in an appropriately named article; if that should be a problem because of length, articles can always be split and their subjects narrowed. (However, Military law is still a stub and has quite a lot of free space for a more detailed treatment of the general issues discussed in the Britannica text.) —xyzzy_n 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to keep the text there indefinitely? Because, you know, it’s still largely irrelevant to the article. —xyzzy_n 12:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

US empire

Re:[3]

"...in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent “white man’s burden.” And in the United States, empire does not even exist; “we” are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide." Quoted on: American Empire

I hope my edits will be satisfactory. Let's not name America an Empire. Lets just name it: United States. Is that okay?

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Empire is an ambivalent term, even more then its Latin root imperium; the meaning and connotations depend on the context. The inevitably in part ideological debate in American Empire is open to widely different interpretations, and cannot be settled objectively; I hadn't seen that page before, but may stay out of it, especially as long as the Iraqi episode (only time wll tell whether that turns imperial despite the original intentions, let's hope it doesn't) makes it all to emotional to hope for a serene debate. In the template Colonial empires, the term is clearly used for all colonial powers, benevolent or not, while only those which have been ruled domestically by an empire are designated here explicitly as colonial empire to avoid confusion with (usually phases in) their internal constitutional history; so either we include 'US empire' as such (there probably could be a point made to link to another article, but I'm talking about the captions in the template only), at least on account of the former Spanish colony Philippines that was neither a short occupation nor a territory about to join the US but saw its aspirations of independence suppressed for decades (at a time that all colonial empires were still rather hand-handed), or you might claim (I'ld have to diagree, though) that the US never would have colonized and consequently leave it out of the tamplate alltogether, probably taking Russia out as well (technically that never was colonisation, but -apart from temporary/preliminary protectorates- annexation to a rather feudal true, dynastic empire, in name transformed to a federation under the Soviet yoke). Fastifex 03:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tui

Hi, Fastifex. I am reverting your edits, and here is why: 1. The change to the line about Polynesian nobles do not make clear that one link is to the Tongan version and the other to the Fiji version. The previous version did. 2. I cannot see the difference between a "word" and a "name" so have put those two categories back together again. How is the name of a bird or a beer a "word" but not a "name"? How are acronyms not "names"? Therefore the previous wording made more sense. 3. The previous version had wording that was more consistent. I accept the reinsertion of the TUI merchandising system reference. Mona-Lynn 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• And on it goes, because:

1) There are more then two Polynesian states with Tui's (the spelling varies, possibly rather by source then by culture), and far more cases, so referring to only two is wrong, if deliberate would even be a lie 2) use a dictionary or English course, if you really don't know, but that's elementary grammar- a rule of thumb is names generally require a capital, other words rarely; I had however failed to check the beer, which turns out to be a brand name from one brewer, so I rectify that; acronyms can be names or not (depending on what they abbreviate), but are put apart because they are spelled with capitals only (some contributors even use a separate dab-page) 3) that's too vague to mean anything, so no comment needed Fastifex 05:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - I thought that Tu'i specifically went to a page on the Tongan version. I will modify the text to remove all references to particular countries. I am still not convinced that proper nouns and common nouns need to be differentiated, but since you feel that they do, then Tu'i is a proper noun since it tends to be capitalized. Also the Wikipedia standard for disambiguation pages is to put entries with links to articles first and ones without links afterwards so I'll fix that. Another thing: Wikipedia standard is that when you reply to someone's message to you, you reply on THEIR talk page, not yours. Mona-Lynn 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Colonial Empires

I notice you reverted my change. I have two objections. First it would be American empire or US-American empire. The adjective generally goes before empire, like British Empire, French colonial empire, Spanish Empire, etc. Secondly, the template used to link to American Empire but the term used there is different than what the template is using, and may cause confusion. The case on the template is describing U.S. colonialism, while the other term controversial usage of "American empire" refers to U.S. global influence. Lastly, American empire, also ignores U.S. mainland expansion. If you believe the template is sufficient in explaining that then I have no objection to American or preferably US-American empire being used. 12.220.94.199 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Lastly, the link should go to History of United States overseas expansion because that is what deals with U.S. colonialism. This template isn't refering to any other form of expansion. 12.220.94.199 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no objection against US-American Empire, as it accomodates both the homogenous use of empire and your Anglophone feeling (I'm an allophone, I'll take your cue there) and I already suggested myself to send the link elsewhere, your suggestion seems a valid option to me. Fastifex 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm glad we reached an agreement. 12.220.94.199 22:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical history of ...

Hello, wondering if you could explain your project here a little further. It's not every day that someone comes along and roughly doubles the history of an article about a city by copying a slab of material about the "ecclesiastical history" of that city. Mind dropping a note at Talk:Lyon? Stevage 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't challenging you. Anyway, the length of that section is really far too long for the Lyon article (as it stands now anyway) - it should be moved to Ecclesiastical history of Lyon or even History of Lyon - we certainly don't need pages of this stuff in the city article itself.

Incidentally...you might do well to keep your judgments on French people to yourself? Stevage 09:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I'd like to second the above. I left a note on the Bordeaux Talk Page about your Ecclesiastical history input. Just how many articles was this added to? I'm sorry but a subject like this can only be encyclopedic under its own heading, that is to say "Ecclesiastical history of ____". Please create the corresponding articles so that your contributions can have their proper place. THEPROMENADER 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is always under its own heading, but as a section- as a historian I'm amazed how the primordial importance of teh church (its institutions often more then matters relating to faith) tends to be underestimated or even ignored, even for the Ancien Régime and the missionary/colonial era outside Europe. It's a matter of appreciation when such section is big enough to deserve a separate page- Lyon as a major primacy is a fair candidate, most bishopric ee articles are (still?) so stubby as a whole and/or can only be given a short Ecclesiastical history history, so that the while stll remains shorter then encyclopaedic. Fastifex 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, leaving that aside, the problem is that the masses of text you're reading are barely comprehensible, and just not that useful. If you were taking the time to refactor this text, selectively including the most relevant bits, that would be really useful. But adding such unselective, bulk contributions, with sentences like When Felix of Urgel continued rebellious to the condemnations pronounced against Adoptionism from 791-799 by the Councils of Ciutad, Friuli, Ratisbon, Frankfort, and Rome, Charlemagne conceived the idea of sending to Urgel with Nebridius, Bishop of Narbonne, and St. Benedict, abbot of the monastery of Aniane, Archbishop Leidrade, a native of Nuremberg and Charlemagne's librarian. to Lyon doesn't really serve any purpose. At the very least you could add some sections to these masses of text so that we could attempt to dissect them and determine what should go in the main article.

If you are a historian, as you say, then help us out here - add relevant, selective, informative, useful, information to the appropriate History sections of these articles. Don't just dump these chunks of text everywhere. Is that a reasonable request? Stevage 08:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the goal of these top-level city articles is to give an outline of the city's major points, outlines that would link to more detailed articles if the reader is interested. Please be so kind as to move your contribution to a proper namespace, and if you like include a link to this from the 'history' section in the main city page. THEPROMENADER 09:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I see that you are quite active today - but give correcting the French city articles priority please. If you are unable to find time to tend to this I can do so tomorrow, in following the examples of your other contributions. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

List of states in the Holy Roman Empire

Is it possible you just accidentally deleted the Key section? Chl 21:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like it; I certainly didn't mean to, in fact I added a code to it this weekend! I've had a horible time with failing uploads on this page, perhaps related to its size. Attempted to put the key back, now, but bizarrely he content table seems to double itself. Fastifex 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Divan

There appears to be a word missing from the lead sentence of Divan. I checked the history and I think you wrote the sentence, or moved it from Diwan (title) (though I csn't find it in that hsitory either). If you have any idea what should go there could you please fill in the blank? Otherwise I'll re-write the sentence. Cheers, -Will Beback

Otranto

I deleted ecclesiastical history from Otranto for two reason:

1. Otranto's bishopric had never had any relevance in history. For example, the Patriarchate of Aquileia has every right to stay in Encyclopedia. I'm Italian and history expert: believe me, Otranto's bishopric has never had any importance...
2. It is hopelessly out of date. Maybe add it back when we will have some info not limited to 1911.

I think sometimes we have here unuseful things only for the sake to have them, or because some guy once copied them from an ancient Encyclopedia when Christian stuff was considered more important than any other one... but this is an opinion of mine, of course. Let me know if my explanations were clear or not. Ciao! Attilios

I disagree. Your philosophy seemS to be: "it interests me, then it is relevant and I add it". I think you can take 200 books about Otranto or Apulia history, and never find anything about the bishopric of the city. There are surely so many details about history that we have left away and that maybe were more relevant to the city, instead of facts about bishops who nobody cared at the time. For example: why don't you find something about the siege of 1480, which was an event of European importance? Anyway, if you're so stuck with your opinion, at least add historical things that are not out of date (i.e.: the number of parishes in 1901... when no data is available for today). Let me know. user:Attilios

The only modus vivendi will be to agree to disagree - your attitude seems to be "I don't care for it, delete it", but an encyclopaedia is to cater for all tastes, so I often add things, and usually let in things, that I couldn't care for in the least, and expect the same form others. Whether I, you or any number of individuals care for something is NOT a valid criterion for exclusion, at most for what I go to the trouble of adding to. Obviously updates are welcome, and possible for dioceses, but that will have to wait till another round, I don't have the time. Why a contributor does not contribute on anything is his business, I don't order you what to research and will never take anyone's orders myself- if yiu find it so important, do it yourself, or find someone who doesn't set other priorities. Fastifex 09:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sahaptin people article

Hi. Please see Wikiproject Indigenous peoples "nations, tribes, groups" table (scroll down to find "Sahaptin people" in this table) for my comments about your expansion of Sahaptin people; also see Talk:Sahaptin people.Skookum1 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Epithet

Hi Fastifex, I see you have reinserted zoological epithets. I am sure you mean well, but if you would examine the ICZN you will find that these do not exist. The internet (and wikipedia) contain a lot of pure myths. Let us not add to the latter? Brya 07:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fastifex, I see you have reinserted zoological epithets (again). I am sure you mean well, but if you would examine the ICZN you will find that these do not exist. The internet (and wikipedia) contain a lot of pure myths. Let us not add to the latter? Brya 07:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC) repeat Brya 06:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly there's a difference in angel of approach: you focus on the ideal way for a zoologist to use a standardized jargon (if it is that, but I suppose you know better there), as is probably most appropriate on a specific page on, say, biological nomenclature, while I and probably the average reader of the Epithet article look at any major application of the general notion Epithet, which has its universal linguistical logic, regardless whether there is any authority sanctioning it or an alternative term as 'official' jargon.

I would say the difference is between trying to build an encyclopedia and just gathering odd facts. If you want to put in something about usage of "epithet" in the zoological world you would first have to research who is using this, and since when. It would also help if you could establish why? Then you would have to place this in a pattern of other such aberrant usages of other terms in the zoological world.

After you have done this, and after you have written separate pages on all cases of such usages you might begin to build a case for including it in the page "Epithet". You would have to show that there is a significant amount of people to do this and you would also have to document who these people are. Of course you would still have to make very clear that this is a form of aberrant usage, in defiance of the official norm.

The statement as you made it is patently false. You refer to usage on a single website (one PoV) and raise that to be the standard to be followed. Very much at odds with the policy of Wikipedia. Brya 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Barca

I don't see why you changed my heading up top. The most common use of Barca is relating to the football club and therefore there should be a direct link there. I took example from the page: Arsenal which lists Arsenal FC and the Arsenal disambiguation page up top.

• You cannot equate both cases: Arsenal is exactly the same word as the team's name, but Barcelona is NOT exactly Barca, nor is that even the actual abbreviation, which is Barça (which has a separate redirect), not BarCa. P.S. Please sign you entries on talk pages (with Fastifex 05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)), otherwise one doesn't know who to talk back to, and it ay be taken as suspicious by some - if you didn't put my Talk page on you watcglist, you may not even read this yourself Fastifex 05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad, however, most people do not have the ç character on their keyboards and therefore would search for Barca and if we could check for statistics I'm sure we'd find that most people aren't looking for the ancient city. Yonatanh 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lado Enclave

You reverted my change to Lado Enclave where I removed the following information about the names of the Belgian commanding officers: 15 January 1897 - 1898 Louis Chaltin (b. 1857 - d. 1933)

 + *1898 - January 1899 Hanolet (1st time)  
 + *January 1899 - 1900 Josué Henry (d. 1948)  
 + *1 May 1900 - 1902 Louis Chaltin  
 + *March 1902 - 19.. Hanolet (2nd time)  
 + *19.. - 10 June 1910 .... 

As you can see, the missing information I referred to includes when this chap named "Hanolet" (first or last name, I'm not sure) finished his term in office and the name of the next commanding officer and when he or she began his/her term in office. As it stands, the information is incomplete and looks unencyclopaedic. If we can find the missing information then it would be great to include it. --Roisterer 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Just done some editing on Pammachius. Problems I notice with stuff copied from Catholic: I think that work was meant for people that had a certain kind of education, and then things were given without further specification, which were deemed obvious. An example: the original articles speaks of Tiber and Porto, considering obvious that a Catholic (probably priest) scholar knew they were located in Rome. The same for the church of SS. John and Paul. Check the modifications I made. Another note: don't forget to add the categories, otherwise the article will be less easily reachable by other users. Ciao!! --Attilios 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Son of "Ecclesiastical History"

It's been brought to my attention that you are continuing to insert large swaths of text from the catholic encyclopaedia into city articles and titling them "Ecclesiastical history of...". You and I have had an explaining over this practice once before, and I believe you then saw reason my suggestions why you should discontinue that practice, yet I have been told that elswhere you have even continued into an edit war: for the sake of Wiki and reason, please stop this.

It doesn't matter who may be 'for' or 'against' the content of your contribution; the reference you are citing from is a secular point of view of a single movement's influence on world matters; this is hardly what one could call a mainstream reference appreciable by all. Again, I suggest you continue to create new articles in the same naming scheme you created before - and there's absolutely nothing wrong at all with linking those articles to main city pages through a category or "see also" link. Anyone interested in such information will find catch on and follow, and, thanks to the search function, they will be more easily found this way.

Thanks, happy continuations, THEPROMENADER 11:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD:Names of European cities in different languages

I notice you've contributed in the past to Names of European cities in different languages. There is a proposal to delete this article and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages might intersted you. AjaxSmack 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Autocratic

Good add of categories: you are right on the singling-out of different forms of monarchy. Cwolfsheep 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you please cleanup your adds to the template: they're making it unwieldly. Cwolfsheep 12:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
2. I attempted to integrate your changes, and yet you still revert to a badly worded, unwikified template. Its like you're ignoring any attempt at consensus at all. Please do something other than revert. Thank you. Cwolfsheep 15:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

List of colonial, imperial and otherwise controlled foreign territories by dominant power‎;

Hello, I noticed you reverted the changes to the above article. While I would agree that some are debatable, some are outright silly. Let's take Salzburg for example. How is Austria a foreign/colonial/other power in relation to that city ? There are numerous others. Travelbird 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Missionary

Hi Fastifex. Saw your work- most of which I think is good. This article had previously been in a pretty disorganised state - and still pretty average from my POV. It still needs lots of referencing to bring it up to scratch. But I disagree with two things you have done - and it would have been helpful to have a longer edit summary (preferably on discussion page) to know why you have done it the way you have. The two things I queary are: 1. Restoring the title "India-based Religions". The correct nomenclature is "Eastern Religions" (I'll find references if you need them)- but further to this, the list seems pointless - sort of an afterthought for later development. That's why I deleted it altogether. I think it should just be deleted- and have done so again - but you restore and improve if you want. 2. Restoring "other Christian Religions" as a sub-heading for the JW's and the LDS churches. I had removed the specific heading "Christian" because this is disputed, indeed mainline Christian groups teach that neither the Latter Day Saints nor the Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian at all - but that both are "sort-of" (neither practise the defining Trinitarian baptism). I had left them under the general heading "Christian Missions" but had removed the pointed reference to "Other Christian Religions" - and I did this a way of being more neutral. Your restoration is I think unecessary, because it now looks to be driving home a point that is certainly disputed (vigorously). I suggest we leave them under the general heading, but remove it from the subcat. heading.

Cor Unum 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Point taken about the multiple saves. I'll try - but I spend a lot of time in media editing and doing computer stuff where failure to save results in the loss of hours of work! My prejudice is always save, save and SAVE again. I'll try to change my ways to prevent wasting wikis memory. I am becoming less dissatisfied with the missionary article (though it still needs some serious academic references). I think we are improving it. My understanding of redaction criticism tells me that it probably grew like topsy as a means of actually getting the LDS and JW references in (rather than as a comprehensive article on missionary work and methods in general). It's going in the right direction now - but I wonder if it might benefit eventually from being compared closely with the article on proselytizing- perhaps they are trying to achieve the same thing?

I also meant to say the psychology of wiki is still a bit of a mystery to me - but your notion of putting a teaser in is rather hilarious. You are so right. It is amusing to think of hundreds of obsessive-compulsive religious wikipedians twitching away at their computers as an ERROR is detected in a religious article. I'll remember this one. Sort of like burley in fishing?

cheers Cor Unum 10:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Capua

You merged the articles without noticing that I had added some info to Bishopric of Capua. Of course Archdiocese of Capua was full of errors and bad style, and corrected some, plus adding dates of some bishops. Are you happy? --Attilios 09:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hickory

Can you verify that more than even 0.1% of hickory wood production is destined for the uses you claim to be significant? I doubt it very much, and certainly nothing remotely like the 50% of the wood use description space you are taking up with it. They are vanishingly minor uses, and not ones for which hickory, rather than any other woods in particular, is specifically important. Any wood can be used for the purpose, is that sentence going to be added to every tree page on wikipedia? - MPF 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The specific punitive device term in the text is hickory stick, obviously not just hickory; only very few wood species get such mention, if memory serves me right the other ones are willow (willowing means birching), birch, hazle (the 'Manx birch') and tamarind (switch). The percentage of production used is utterly irrelevant, such blind quantitative reasoning would be a carnage among woods uses (e.g. golf sticks) and is arbitrary as one use may well dwarf all others, nor would it take account of value or socio-cultural relevance. If other uses are not getting more lines, that's either because nobody considers them worth elaborating upon (which would make them apparently not even as important) or probably because nobody got round to them yet, wikipedia after all is only a few years old, countless pages and must sections are in fact still stubbish or even absent Fastifex 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment, though I think the coverage is still a little 'over the top' - I'll think of some slightly more compact wording and post it here later for your thoughts before I make any changes - MPF 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanking implements?

Say, Fastifex... we need to talk. What is with this "Spanking implement" stuff in the pointing stick article? Is it REALLY necessary to have that in there? Its kinda ridiculous. Thanks. --CoolFox 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sans-culottes

Can you please see my questions at Talk:Sans-culottes about your edit to that article about a week ago? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OOOPS on Canons Regular

Hey Fastifex- I think we are editing the same article at the same time: Canons Regular. I have just restored the contemporary new stuff to the top of the article. Hope you don't mind. It's the journalist in me...

cheers Cor Unum 11:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hairbrush

Hello! I once again removed the paragraph on child spanking and erotic spanking that was put in the hairbrush article. The paragraph has nothing to do with brushing hair and seem quite ridiculous in the article and was longer than the brushing article itself! If you would like to add a short sentence about spanking then please do so, but the entire, detailed text belongs in the "Spanking" article. Thank you! loulou 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with loulou. A short sentence mentioning that hairbrushes are sometimes used for spanking is appropriate and encyclopaedic. A paragraph about bare bottoms, and about whether the child is bending over or placed over the parent's lap has absolutely nothing to do with hairbrushes, and makes the article look ridiculous. Please respond to the points on the talk page rather than constantly re-adding that stuff. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Abbey of Batalha

I've corrected your move of the article, it is not an Abbey, but a monastery. I don't know if there is a great difference between both terms, but the second is the most common. Cheers! Mário 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• By definition you cannot 'correct' what but you own admission you don't know yourself; but I do know the 'difference', and they overlap: every abbey is a monastery, but many monasteries aren't abbeys, the criterion is whether the head is styled abbot, which is a high clerical rank, in some senses comparable to a bishop. So, monestery is not wrong, but abbey is, in this case, the precise and better term; in fact it is a bit misleading not to use the precise term, because one rarely is so uncurtuous as to use the vague term is stead of the prestigeous one, so monastery is normally only used as a generic term (about abbeys and other moasteries), for variation within a same text (one it has established to be about an abbey) or in other cases for a non-abbey, a bit like a precise rank is better then just officer or field officer; formal texts would only use abbey for one, it is the 'correct' term, monastery just one of many tolerated alternatives. Fastifex 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't undersant your first sentence. My point is that I never heard about "Abadia da Batalha", I always heard about "Mosteiro da Batalha", along with that, UNESCO calls it "Monastery". And how do you know this is an abbey? Actually, the building is not the house of a religious order anymore. Searching for "Abbey of Batalha" in Google gives 89 results and searching for "Abadia da Batalha" gives 1, while "Monastery of Batalha" gives 20,000. Mário 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Uzès

I moved another of your masterworks to Bishopric of Uzès... Maybe it'd need some copyedit from you. A note: if consensus had been reached that ecclesiastical histories, if not relevant to the generel history of topics, must be in separate articles, why don't you follow this procedure in your new additions? Another advice: please don't limit yourself to paste-and-copy work, search the Internet for updated news about the dioceses you're adding, all dioceses should have an official website (see Diocese of Gaeta for example). Keeping data from 1905 or so is totally absurd. Ciao! --Attilios 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And please avoid to add back "and episcopal see" etc. in the abstracts. Otherwise we should add all the other things the cities are seat (why not university seat, for example? Don't you think that it should be more culturally relevant for users here than Catholic administration things?)--Attilios 12:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Return of the Son of "Ecclesiastical History"

Fastifex,

I've noticed that yet again you are dumping unorganised catholic encyclopedia exerpts 'en masse' into what are supposed to be summary city articles - you know quite well how disruptive this is. I've noticed that you've even begun replacing articles created for your content with a redirect to the main city page - this is not only disruption, but disruption planned in advance. For what I hope is the final time: please desist. It would also be quite kind of you to repair the damage you've done instead of leaving this quite unproductive work to others. THEPROMENADER 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you're a bit overzealous in your page moves - moving "departement of Ardèche" to "Ardèche" ? Ardèche is indeed a departement, but was once a historical region - your move cancelled someone's efforts to dispel ambiguity! THEPROMENADER 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections - if there are any other "missing" bishopric or diocese city articles, you can most likely find them under one of these terms appended to the city name. Regards. THEPROMENADER 07:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop perverting the encyclopedia

Fastifex, please stop spamming the encyclopedia with perversion material ("Pervertible" - your word, not mine).

Just about any object could be put to some kind of perverted use, couldn't it? Does that mean that every encyclopedia article should have references to that perversion? I don't think so.

The comment for your latest edit to Pointing stick says "(restore original and still main use)". Let's take a closer look at that. I will grant you that the term "pointing stick" may be used to refer to a wooden stick, but is it still the "main use"? Please check the following references:

dictionary.com

Merriam Webster

Encyclopaedia Britannica

Yahoo!

MSN

Google

Then come back and tell me that your definition of pointing stick is still the "main use". Not even close. But it did allow you to get the pervertible reference back into the article. (Which I then removed - again.)

I'm sorry if I sound hostile about this, but I'm pretty upset. You have made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia, but some of these edits in articles like Pointing stick, Ruler, and Broom are appalling.

So please, stop it. I'm not the first person to have to ask you this. Hopefully you will stop and I can be the last.

Michael Geary 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry if I laid it on a bit thick with all those search references. I wouldn't claim that a topic needs to be mainstream to be included in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a big tent. You can even have your pervertibles - somewhere.

Here's what this is really about: When I'm sitting at the computer with my 9 year old daughter and she asks a perfectly innocent question like "Daddy, what's the red mouse button on my ThinkPad called?" or "Why are some rulers in inches and some in centimeters?", shouldn't we be able to look it up on Wikipedia without throwing obscene material in her face?

Michael Geary 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am with Geary on this. --Knife Knut 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, how about separating material to Pointing stick (stick) or Pointing stick (device), respectively, and linking between them? Alternatively, if the meanings are equally important, consider putting the content into two new separate articles and making a disambiguation page. —xyzzy_n 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I did just that (or close to it) last night. Since nearly all the incoming links were to the TrackPoint meaning, I left that on Pointing stick and moved the wooden stick definition to a disambiguation page. Of course, anyone can create a new article from there if there is more to say about the original pointing stick.

Also, thank you for your very thoughtful note on my user page. I'll get back to you on that a bit later. —Michael Geary 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

xyzzy_n was kind enough to inform me that Wikipedia is not censored, and offered the suggestion that the best approach is usually to simply avoid the material I consider inappropriate.

Fair enough, and point well taken. But it's a real shame if that's the whole story. Who buys more encyclopedias, people buying for themselves or people buying for their kids?

And does this really mean that any page on Wikipedia is fair game for this kind of material? Where would you stop?

Can we expect to see:

Soldering iron

Other uses

Soldering irons are sometimes used for human branding, but they are not recommended because of the risk of lead poisoning.

Categories: Electronic Tools | Branding Implements

And:

Zucchini

Other uses

I'd better let you figure that one out...

Is there any part of Wikipedia where we could expect not to see this stuff? —Michael Geary 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. You can, of course, be reasonably certain that that e. g. Category:Algorithms won’t hold (much) pornography and detailed explanations of techniques of using common items for sexual activity. Beyond that, though, anything that is relevant to the topic of an article, is not an extremely marginal point of view and is verifiable can appear. As far as I can tell, this is a conclusion from policies which represent a wide consensus; you can voice your objections to them on the relevant talk pages, but do not expect any results. You will definitely not achieve much on users’ talk pages (with the possible exception of WP:JIMBO, and that guy used to sell porn (just kidding)). —xyzzy_n 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Discuss

Hello Fastifex! Before you revert the "how-to-spank" manual on the "Hairbrush" page, please write on the Hairbrush discussion page why you think the manual should be in the article. It's best to discuss calmly than to have a remove/revert war! loulou 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The sad truth, with humor

Fastifex, I was crying last night after I saw what you've been doing to the Hairbrush article. Me, a grown man. Crying.

You know why? Sweet Loulou. She's 12, Fastifex. 12.

Like my daughter, she probably likes to brush her hair. With a hairbrush. You know, those things that are made for brushing hair? She probably started contributing to the hairbrush article because of that interest.

Do you think when she was younger she imagined, "When I am 12, I'm going to be defending an encyclopedia article on hairbrushes against sado-erotic spam." I guess they grow up fast these days.

And AnnH. She is being so nice, trying to reason with you, asking why you continue to add this material to the hairbrush article, asking you if it would be OK to please tone it down a bit.

I beg you, sir. Search your heart. Somewhere in there, isn't there a place where you can see that what you are doing is wrong?

Child Pornography

The paragraph you keep adding to Hairbrush describes spanking a child's bare buttocks, the various positions in which the child might be placed, references a "similarly popular posterior discipline", and concludes with a reference to "erotic spanking." The act is performed "generally at home," indicating that the parent is doing the spanking.

Now, if this were an article about spanking, then a similar description, without the drooling enthusiasm, and separate from the sado-erotic part, might be appropriate. But in an article about hairbrushes? How could this be intended for anyone other than those who might be aroused by it?

If it's not child pornography, it's awfully close.

Also, I wonder if you realize that spanking is not "popular" among parents. No parent with even a hint of moral character enjoys spanking their child. It is at best a last resort. "This hurts me more than it does you" is no joke.

Spam

You said in an edit comment that "spam is posting the same thig at many places, not similar things each on one" [sic].

Let me try to explain this one more time, not because I really hope to convince you, but only because making up these stories is the one part of this debacle that is any fun for me.

Like you or anyone, I have a number of personal interests. Two of mine happen to be Star Trek and harmonica (I am a harmonica player).

If I did the same thing you are doing, I would make these kinds of additions to articles:

Towel

Use with Harmonica

A cotton towel is an ideal implement for cleaning [harmonicas]. [Harmonica players] often say that it seems to be made for the job. It can be used wet or dry to clean the outside of the harmonica without harming the finish. The towel can also be used to clean the [reeds] and [reedplates] of a disassembled harmonica, but great care must be taken to avoid snagging the reeds, which would render the harmonica unplayable.

Use in Star Trek

Curiously, towels are never seen used by the crew of the [Enterprise]. Star Trek [canon] states that they were not needed because of the ship's [microwave showers]. The actual reason, however, is that [Gene Roddenberry] could not afford towels. Borrowed hotel towels were used in a few episodes of [The Original Series], allowing viewers tantalizing glimpses of attractive young women.

Categories: ... | Harmonica Accessories | Star Trek Props | ...

and:

Hairbrush

Use with harmonica

A small hairbrush with fine bristles can be used to clean the [reeds] and [reedplates] of a disassembled [harmonica]. Brush gently across the plate parallel to the reeds, starting from the [rivet] toward the [free end] of the reed. Brushing in any other direction will damage the reeds and render the harmonica unplayable. (Compare with [Towel].) Most [harmonica players] do not recommend using the same hairbrush for your hair and the harmonica, although some claim that that the hair oils help the reeds [vibrate] more smoothly.

Use in Star Trek

[Lt. Uhuru] has been seen in several episodes of [The Original Series] brushing her short, fine, wavy, black, lustrous hair with a hairbrush. Some [fans] claim that [Dr. Beverly Crusher's] name is a hidden reference to hairbrushing. [Jean-Luc Picard], captain of the [Enterprise] in [The Next Generation], and [Benjamin Sisko], captain of [Deep Space 9], have never been observed to use hairbrushes.

Categories: ... | Harmonica Accessories | Star Trek Props | ...

Tell me, do those important and verifiable facts belong in the Towel and Hairbrush articles?

Would something like this ever be relevant? Sure:

Chair

The most expensive chair in history was [Captain Kirk's] command chair from the original [Star Trek] series, which sold at a [Sotheby's] auction for $37,000,000.

Now that is significant and relevant to the Chair article. Do you see the difference?

No Fun

Here's the last thing; you are taking all the fun away for Wikipedia contributors and visitors alike. Who wants to put their time and effort (and it is a labor of love) into an article, only to find that you've come along and trashed it - again? It's no fun for anyone (other than giving me a chance to write those parodies).

We would all like to get back to other things.

So I beg you, again. What will it take to get you to stop?

Michael Geary 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yardstick

I deleted the excessively enthusiastic BDSM reference in Yardstick again.

As an attempt to meet you halfway, in its place I added a simple statement, "Yardsticks...are sometimes used for spanking."

That much, and no more, seems appropriate for the Yardstick article. Can we leave it at that? --Michael Geary 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

William Flete

Thanks for this article Fastifex. I have been wondering who he was. cheers Cor Unum 10:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cività Castellana

I had to move back Cività Castellana to Civita Castellana. I must again adivce you to avoid to make such moves basing from Catholic Encyclopedia. It is often unrealiable, at least for what concerns Italian language, history, etc. And please be more accurate and coherent in editing. You added your usual unrelevant sub-article about this mysterious Cività Castellana, but left all the remaining article with the former spelling. You should do more than simply past-and-copy. Next time you're doing something regarding Italian stuff, please ask me advice. Further notes:

• "XXXX is a town, commune and Catholic see...". Please refrain to cite secondary things in the very beginning of the geographical abstract. A good solution is that in Crema, Italy, where the existence of the see is cited later as "It is also an ecclesiastical see".
• I've hidden the ecclesiastical history in Civita Castellana. Please move to a SEPARATE ARTICLE as per general agreement gained.
• Please stop to add or rewrite stuff concerning early 20th century data. What's the meaning to have this stuff when modern data is absent? Have you ever seen a decent encyclopedia saying "population of Gaeta was 11,355 in 1911" without saying anything about the current one?

Ciao! --Attilios 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Freiherr

hello Fastifex, how are you? It has been brought to my attention that there seems to be some disagreement about the wording of the entry of the article Freiherr. It baffles me why this is seemingly spinning out of control with an edit fight. I am inviting you and Charles to post the views on the talk page of Freiherr. I don't want to put in a block on the article because of this disagreement yet. I hope that the discussion on the talk page will help defuse the situation. looking forward, thank you.. Gryffindor 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page

Hello! You routed a link [4] to a disambiguation page. If "Literary Genre" isn't the right meaning, then either pick another article from the style disambiguation page or simply remove the link. I've removed the link for now. Thanks! Dreadlocke 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks for finding a good link! Dreadlocke 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar question on Security page edits.

Hi! I noticed your edits on the Security Guard page and I had a question regarding the grammar usage that you used on the Security Agent portion of the page. I quoted the supporting documentation directly when I originally added it and I do not believe that your usage here is correct. Your thoughts on this?

Thanks! Captain Jason 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not me

(Or is that, "Not I"? :)

Since I cannot find Dreadlocke on the history page between my last two edits, your message on my Talk passage didn't specify the actual grammar points and your last edit only carries the edit commentary sp(elling, I presume), I'm afraid it's not clear to me what exactly you mean, so I couldn't possibly answer to the point either. However, being an allophone, I realize I may well get some things (on occasion horribly) wrong in the grammar department. So please specify your concerns or simply correct them, I have no intention to jealously defend my fallible English grammar. On the other hand, I seriously doubt whether the quoted documentation is to be presumed any more of on infallible authority when it comes to grammar, who really takes the time to double-check that thoroughly? I'ld rather trust an anglophone who really cares, as you apparently do Fastifex 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think you might have me confused with Captain Jason above. I merely fixed a minor spelling error on the article [5] and made no comments about grammar. On your talk page, I just thanked you for finding a good link! [6] Dreadlocke 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, actually, I only read the Security Guard article because I noticed Capt. Jason's message on your talk page when I came back to thank you for finding the style link. Then I noticed the spelling error there and fixed it. :) Dreadlocke 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wooden spoon

Your repeated unilateral inclusion is disruptive. Take the matter to Talk:Wooden spoon and seek for consensus. Femto 12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Please stop reverting. You should actually see the needed context of this article at WP:CHINA. This was a requested article for a while, (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China), one that needed its own article because the articles covering the individual concessions in Shanghai and Tianjin were too specific and the concession article was too general. The onus is you to prove why we need merger, not the other way round. You didn't actually say anything on the talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

6billion orthers

Fastifex, I'm trying to understand your comment in this edit to Wooden spoon.

In reply to Femto's request:

"Revert. You've been reverted by three people, not counting myself. Do not add it again without consensus on the talk page."

You wrote:

"rv- and not by 6billion orthers, so what? nobody ever gives a reason, just subjective scolding, usually even terminologically absurd"

Are you saying that 6billion orthers will have to revert your edits before you stop this? --Michael Geary 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Naaah. A simple majority of 3 billion would suffice... Femto 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason

Dear Fastifex,

In response to your comment where you said

"rv- and not by 6billion orthers, so what? nobody ever gives a reason, just subjective scolding, usually even terminologically absurd"

I would just like to say that it is very untrue. On the contrary, we have given you many reasons. Here is a sample: it's sick, it's off the subject, the details add nothing important to the article, the description has nothing to do with the article, and it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. loulou 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For some more reasons, see Femto and AnnH's comments in Talk:Wooden spoon. --Michael Geary 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rope

I deleted the following from Rope again:

The term 'bull's eye' was used when [the whip] hit the tender areas between the buttocks. Naughty boys were ordered to bend over on the spot, presenting their posterior to be lashed with it for such minor offences as taking too long to get in or out of the bath tub, boys who would then still wet and stark naked.

Stop adding this child porn. It is sick, and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Michael Geary 08:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrel

Greetings, Fastifex. Regarding our recent edits to the "over a barrel" section in Barrel, I posted a note on the talk page asking other contributors which version they think is more suitable for the article.

BTW, your sentence in Barrel about "whipping posts", "ritual apparatus", "lashes to the posterior", "bend-over culprit", "whipping naked boys", "strapping juveniles", "lashes above the waist", and "a whipping pole" weighs in at 117 words. Remarkable! --Michael Geary 17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaker and Slipper

Slipper had a lengthy section about "slippering", the punishment. I moved this material into its own article and listed it in the "see also" section of Slipper.

Sneaker had a section about punishment, humiliation, and foot fetishism. I removed this section and the related "spanking implements" category, and requested comments on the talk page. --Michael Geary 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Willow

You know, old buddy, just the other day I was complaining that you had taken the fun out of Wikipedia. I take it all back. I busted out laughing when I saw what was in Willow (emphasis on was).

Sorry, I don't mean to be uncivil, it's 110 degrees here so cut me some slack. :-) --Michael Geary 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stinger

I toned this down a bit. --Michael Geary 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And Fastifex reverted. I tried again. He reverted again. Time to ask other contributors for their feedback: Talk:Stinger. Thanks! --Michael Geary 07:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Castellan

Thanks for fixing my ToP Dab; i had the feeling someone else could have worded it better, and no doubt you have. (I didn't notice who put Castellans under a Cat "domestic workers, but i was surprised; are you, too?)
--Jerzy•t 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Belt and Belt (clothing)

Holy cow.

There was no ambiguity in this disambiguation page.

Belt can refer to the following objects:

* A belt (clothing) is an article of clothing worn around the waist to hold ones pants up or as a fashion accessory, also used as a punitive implement for a so-called belting or for sexual gratification in the form of a spanking.

* …

Belt (clothing) wasn't as bad, but it needed a little copyediting anyway...

Michael Geary 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship accusations

Re: [7], [8], [9] - The consensus seems clear that your additions to a great number of articles are unencyclopedic and off-topic. You're free to add details on the history of corporal punishment to an article on the history of corporal punishment. This is not censorship. The reversions are part of the usual consensus-driven editing process, in which you are invited to take part, but so far only tried to avoid it. Please refrain from further personal accusations towards User:Geary. Femto 12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Femto, and obviously I agree with you—up until the last sentence. I actually haven't taken any of Fastifex's comments as personal accusations. He called my edits "censorship", but that's a complaint about the edit, not about me. So no worries on that particular aspect.

There is a good discussion of this kind of "censorship" at Wikipedia is censored, whether we like it or not. The discussion is largely about graphic images, but the principle is the same.

Wikipedia has a place for (almost) everything, but the sometimes-neglected corollary to that is that everything should be in its proper place. --Michael Geary 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear you're not personally offended. I don't know if I wouldn't be offended, if my rationale about being not the place for that content was simply brushed away, and reverted only with a reference to censorship. Hands down, you'd make a better diplomat than me. :) Femto 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Me, a diplomat? I'd never qualify. :-) AnnH, now there's a diplomat! --Michael Geary 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopaedia content inappropriate

Hi, thanks for your efforts in bringing material from the Catholic Encyclopaedia for various New Guinea articles (most recently Kaiser-Wilhelmsland.

Once again, please don't paste Catholic Encyclopaedia text into the main body text for a Wikipedia article, as if it represents contemporary knowledge.

This text is very old, often badly misinformed, and frequently blatantly and offensively racist. It is totally inappropriate for direct use in Wikipedia. If sections are to be used, they should be placed in the article as quotes with direct attribution. There is no way that some of this content belongs as main body content in a contemporary encyclopaedia - it is offensive and often just wrong, and should be treated with a great deal of skepticism - definitely not treated as a primary and balanced source.

Wantok 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cane and Caning

These articles are in dire need of some editorial attention, if anyone else would like to take a turn at it. Cane has a bit too much detail that belongs in Caning (if anywhere).

Caning at least has the virtue of being mostly about its topic, so I'll pretty much leave it to those who are more interested. But it could sure use some cleanup. I couldn't help but notice how bad some of the writing is:

Thus in the Royal Navy the bosun's cane was frequently used on the backsides of boys without ceremony (as opposed to publicly kissing the gunner's daughter, a formal bare bottom flogging on deck ordered by the captain or a court martial, usually involving birch or cat o' nine tails) on the spot or in the gun room, for daily offenses (at least one mid 19th-century captain had every single junior boy given six cane strokes every morning on various pretexts! ) considered too insignificant to require written formalities or orders from an officer (who certainly could and routinely also did order the cane, actually wielding it was considered unsuitable for a gentleman), but more severe than the bimmy.

Holy moly, that is a mouthful. In fact, the sentence happens to be 117 words long, exactly the same length as the one I pruned from Barrel. Amazing! --Michael Geary 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dictator

I don't know why you keep reverting that article. The new edits are horribly written and mixed in with lots of original research. Please stop. 172 | Talk 04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough.

Please stop reinserting content about male bare-chestedness into the toplessness article; there is an article on barechested and there are clear, obvious and well-documented social and cultural differences between the two. Duplicating the content as you have been creates confusion, and also overwhelms the more common usage with one which is practically unknown in the English-speaking world. Thanks.

I also note that reversion to including content which other editors consider inappropriate, excessively detailed or original research is a common complaint against you. I suggest you stop doing this as it is disruptiove and can lead to your being blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

images

Hi, I hope you will not mind too much my deletion of the Cambridge tondo from the Eromenos article. I thought that it was simply misleading and inflamatory there, perhaps something from the Tomb of the Diver might be more fitting? Haiduc 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny how we see things differently. I went to check the Tonso article and thought the image there was fine, and a perfectly valid example of a tondo. (The choice of the other tondo is amusing too, don't you think?) There is nothing wrong with the Cambridge tondo, I used it myself in the Pederasty in ancient Greece - Sexual aspects section. I just think that it is not as representative of a classical pederastic relationship as a symposium couch picture, since we can safely say that in the formal practice all erastes were intimate with their eromenos, but not all were sexual. Haiduc 23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But I already replied. Did you miss it? Haiduc 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoon

I have to agree with the person who deleted your reference. I'm getting a bit less tolerent of these. By definition "any standard non-sexual object" can be given a sexual context - are we to put links on "fork", "cloth", "buckle" ad infinitum? I'm impressed with the depth of information available here on sexual topics - this is a great resource for that - but I don't want links to that material from *every* other topic.--Snori 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You would be amazed. Here are some articles where I've personally been involved in cleaning this stuff out:

Barrel

Bat (disambiguation)

Belt

Belt (clothing)

Broom

Cane

Carpet beater

Cutting board

Drummer

Hairbrush

Paddle (disambiguation)

Pointing stick

Pointing stick (disambiguation)

Rope

Ruler

Shed

Slipper

Sneaker (footwear)

Spatula

Spoon

Stinger

Strap

Vault (gymnastics)

Willow

Wooden spoon

Yardstick

--Michael Geary 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanking

You recently (and repeatedly) added this text to Spanking:

However there are alternative positions, mainly used for adults (rather too big and/or heavy to put over lap or knee, so the spanker may find it more difficult to hit with full force; also the physical contact with the spankee, who if male often gets (semi-) erect as an involuntary bodily reflex, may be considered unpleasent and/or indecent) but also for more grave and/or formal discipline, even of minors, using an implement.

…

* With nearly all the mentioned positions, one more parameter affects the efficiency of the position: the further the legs are apart, the more the buttocks are tensed, the extra sensitive crack in between more exposed and often the genitalia (if divested) embarrassingly visible. This is why experienced discipliners often stipulate the spankee must assume such a position, e.g. each limb along a leg of a punishment horse or lie or stand spread-eagled (as on a saltire cross).

Why on earth are you doing this? There is already a separate article for erotic spanking.

Don't you realize how you have been antagonizing other contributors? Most of the rest of us want to make Wikipedia a useful resource, with articles that are actually about the topics they say they are about.

This is headed for an RfC. --Michael Geary 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, you did it again! --Michael Geary 17:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. Your persistent addition of original research and what can only be described as sexcruft needs to stop. This block is for 24 hours, if you continue this behaviour longer blocks may result. Stop now.. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

MOre arsecruft: [10]. Any chance you might one day stop doing this? Just zis Guy you know? 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

134 words!

A new record—134 words in one sentence:

Spanking, by today's definition, consists of striking the buttocks repeatedly, usually as a corporal punishment, with either an open hand or various implements including a cane, a belt or strap, various types of whips (see flagellation) such as martinet and tawse (traditional in France resp. Scotland), switch or other form of rod, paddle (the U.S. favorite), some curious devices as produced for U.S. masonic lodge initiations (such as the electric so-called spanker, and trickster 'paddling machines'), or still various (e.g. 'household') objects designed for other purposes (grabbing for an improvised implement can occur in any punitive context except the most formal punishments when it is strictly prescribed), such as a slipper (common in Commonwealth domestic discipline, also said when other footwear is used), a wooden spoon, a bath brush, wooden ruler or the hairbrush.

--Michael Geary 04:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all the crap you have been getting. Keep up the Catholic encyclopedia work. Your doing a great job!! James Janderson 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi rememer to categorize your articles e.g Roman catholic missionaries, or Peruvian missionaries and {{Peru-bio-stub}} etc. This provides links to other articles and makes finding your quality articles easier.thanks James Janderson 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is crapping on the catholic part of the work, far as I know. Let me tell you, Fastifex already does an outstanding job at ignoring all talk, no need for further support of that. Femto 14:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't see anything wrong with packing 134 words into one sentence? Can you explain why this is acceptable writing? --Michael Geary 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree at all with "Ignore all the crap you have been getting." The reason for all the "crap" he has been getting is his many edits against consensus. I think that "Ignore all the crap you have been getting" is an unwise piece of advice, and that "take seriously all the crap you have been getting: it is an indicator of discontent at your conduct" would have been more appropriate. That said, if he is doing good work in other articles then that is excellent and I applaud it wholeheartedly. Maybe at some level he does not "ignore all talk" and if this is so then I would be the first to express my delight in his developing a more consensus-driven approach to editing. 82.45.248.177 08:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have complained several times about the content of Fastifex's contributions, but my comment here is about the poor quality of the writing. In addition to the 134-word sentence above, Spanking contains sentences that are 93, 103, 117, and 118 words long. The 93-word sentence includes seven parenthesized clauses (even (like this one) nested). I'm sorry, but I think Wikipedia deserves better writing than that. --Michael Geary 17:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia.

Please don't copy text straight from there, see WP:NPOV and the tone for Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-08t21:03z, 2006-08-08t20:37z

See also #Catholic Encyclopaedia content inappropriate. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-09t19:56z

Re [11]. Lots of CE text is wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia, see #Catholic_Encyclopaedia_content_inappropriate. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-10t11:12z

Copyright.

K. Knight's transcribed pages are copyrighted. Are you transcribing from the original books, or copy pasting the from Knight's pages? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-09t19:56z

Re [12]. I just found catholicity.com which doesn't have a copyright notice like Knight's. Something is fishy here, either catholicity copied Knight's transcriptions copyrighted, or Knight put an "All rights reserved." copyrighted on transcriptions that's not his.

Sorry about the copyvio edit summaries. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-10t11:12z

Double Redirects

Please avoid using double redirects. --Porqin 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cataldus

Hey, I've undone your edit to St. Catald, because they are not actually different people.. the middle paragraph says "On his return home his ship was wrecked off the Italian coast, near the city of Taranto. The people here appear to have encouraged the monk to become their Bishop, and he rose to become thier Arch-Bishop. Some of the miracles claimed in Catalds name include protecting the city against the Plague and floods that, apparently, had had occoured in neighbouring areas." - Which I think/hope explains that aspect of his life. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My revert on Kat

Just to let you know, the admin revert I made on the Kat page was made more because of who made the edit, more than the content of the edit. The anon who made the edit also made edits that indicated that it was the Tots TV vandal. This vandal is a subtle misinformation vandal. When identified, generally all edits from that same IP in the same time period are suspect. In general, unless I can be 100% certain they are correct, I err on the side of safety and revert them. So in a case like this, where I had no idea what is right, I played it safe and did not trust what the vandal had done. That he was correct is fine, and it's fine that you reverted me if you know the material and know which is correct. But not knowing, I cannot affort to trust edits from this vandal to not be subtle misinformation. (This comment here is mostly an FYI for what was happening. :) ) - TexasAndroid 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Names of European cities in different languages and Names of Asian cities in different languages

Hi, Fastifex. You moved Nicosia, a city geographically in Asia to the European list. I am very well aware that Cyprus is a transcontinental county and it is culturally considered a part of Europe. But it is not the only state with this status and there are others (namely, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey), yet you only modified Nicosia. The move was based on the clear consensus (under headings Cities outside Europe and Cities in Turkey and other transcontinental states) on the European article's talk page, to base the inclusion criterion solely on the city's geographical location, not the appellation of the host country. Could you please check these? Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in. I had a dispute some time ago with User:AtilimGunesBaydin about the inclusion of Ankara and Izmir in the list of European cities. So let me reiterate: while the consensus was reached before my time, it says that because of difficulties of defining the borders of Europe culturally and/or politically, a decision was taken to adopt a strictly geographical definition, which means that the Asian part of Turkey is excluded, and that Cyprus and Israel are excluded. Of course you are welcome to discuss changes to the consensus, but let's talk about this on Talk:Names of European cities in different languages first. Thanks Crix 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)