This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I apologize for the addition of my sitelinks to your website, I've just hired someone to market my site to get a better ranking, it seems he abused my Wikipedia account priveleges. I was told today about all these backlinks i had from Wiki, but just found your messages posted in my account, so i've asked him not to touch my Wiki account in future. I request that my post on the Basil Valentine page be restored as it was a genuine article that deserves a mention. If you do not still have it here it is...
"The Valentine/Paracelsus connection Hermetic student Joshua Arent suggests that Basil Valentine was merely a nom de plume of German physician and alchemist Paracelsus, their works having a very close correspondence in philosophy, methodology and demeanor. Neither Valentine nor Paracelsus mentioned the other even though they shared exactly the same perspective on Alchemical and Spagyric philosophy. Both alchemists lived in roughly the same time frame, were native to Germany, shared the same religious preference (Benedictine Christianity) and shared an extreme disapproval of the medical establishment which they vocalized in their writings. It should be noted that early in his life Paracelsus was getting used to the monastic life whilst living with his father in a Benedictine cloister studying Alchemy and Latin.[1] The name Paracelsus was also a self chosen nom de plume of his real name Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim. Although there is controversy over when Basil Valentine existed, Waite points out that it can only be between the invention of printing and the time his works were published, i.e. from late 15th Century to the very beginning of the 1600’s. This is because of Valentine’s line in the ‘Triumphal Chariot’, “You should know that Antimony is used for a good many purposes besides those of the typographer.”
This possible double identity allows for a clearer contextual understanding between both Paracelsus' and Valentine's works."
I apologise for the inconvenience, Joshua Arent ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, last time I made a big statement on why not to delete Siege of Ecbatana, go on the page where people discuss if it should be deleted or not, and I wrote and gave some sources and other info to how it nearly resembles the Siege of the Sogdian Rock in Alexanders battles, which the Sogdians just surrendered to him, and no actual fighting to place, I think the issue of how some users pay less attention or ignore the issues I raise on Wikipedia should be addressed to the administraters. More and more users are flip flopping, or deleting or merging articles when other articles are worse, and not paying attention to the other articles(like siege of the sogdian rock) that need more attention than the Persian Revolt. Like I said to Pepperkingiron, I need almost 2 weeks of sourcing and expanding my articles. But it seems that no one cares. There was 7/11 people that were in favor of either KEEPING OR RENAMING the Siege of Ecbatana. But it got deleted. AND IT DID HAVE SOME TEXT, AND PROMISED TO BE EXPANDED UPON WHEN DELETED! And the other articles that I have created in the Persian Revolt have allot of info I can get on the net. So I pray you and other users give a little bit more thought before DESTROYING or MERGING my work!-- Ariobarza ( talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
From time to time right-wing fanatics discover the JBS entry and try to turn it into a sanitized propaganda page. Feel free to attempt to establish sanity. The current page is a disaster because left-wing and right-wing fanatics are constantly battling over it. As for the JBS blog: 1) if the blog is not controlled from the main office in Appleton, Wisconsin, it does not represent offical JBS reality. 2) This Iowa blog appears to be totally lunatic drivel that does not represent official JBS national policy (and I have read their publications for 30 years. 3) the posting on the Iowa blog is so ignorant that it does not realize that the paramilitary Minutemen of the 1960s has no connection with the anti-immigrant Minutemen of 2008. Best wishes with mud wrestling.-- Cberlet ( talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm unable to find evidence that the website is in fact his own. Has he admitted it? Discussion started at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#user:_Marburg72. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping me a note. I'll fact check first, but I'm sure I'll be able to vouch for you if necessary.
I doubt very much that you've done anything wrong. And I'm certain you haven't done anything that can't be fixed—by definition of a Wiki.
Apologies are wonderful things. That's the only place real damage can happen—if they're not offered when appropriate. Wiki editors are real people and real contributions have real psychological effects. Apologies are normally more powerfully positive (if sincere) than any ripples that required them were ever negative.
You can trust mediation. It's not perfect but mediators stick with the issues until they're resolved. Join the mediation team! Or maybe not (LOL). Contributing at low volatility pages at Wiki is tons of fun. Some pages are for tough-nuts.
Say what you said to me (more or less) to a mediator and you're sweet.
Just take this as a pretty clear signal that Taiwan boi is seriously interested in settling the text of that article. This mediation thing is more about him than you, and good for him!
I sincerely doubt you'll need me, but if you do, give a holler, I'll check facts and be creative about suggesting a warm fuzzy way forward. I'll have your peace of mind firmly on my agenda.
I respect Taiwan boi, I'm probably as fiercesome as he is when I'm crossed, but that's not the role I like to play. It's probably the same with him.
LOL I'm glad I've not been in an argument against Taiwan, or against PiCo, I think they'd both outlast me several times over. ;)
Anyway, I've said plenty. Thanks heaps for sharing this with me, I'll be there if you need, but you won't, you'll be fine.
Just keep on enjoying Wiki-ing! :) Alastair Haines ( talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, the mediation to which I was referring is informal mediation, which comes before formal mediation. I have also sought third party advice and editorial assistance. The abuse of that article is an absolute disgrace, and while vandals like PiCo have people like you as their cheerleaders, then nothing will ever be done about it. You were one of the editors who identified PiCo's material in the Documentary Hypothesis section as WP:COAT, and you were one of the editors who contributed to building the consensus as to what should be in that section, so your support of PiCo's removal of the material which was agreed on by consensus is incomprehensible. I am now going after every editor who assists PiCo's vandalism, and will seek to hold you all to the policies of Wikipedia. That is not an unreasonable expectation. If you intend to keep supporting PiCo's edits, then I will keep pursuing the conflict resolution process. If you don't, we can leave it here. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm entirely agree, it's a real problem and I think it's getting worse. If you notice, a lots of the conflicts that arrive at AN/I that have either a cultural and/or ethnic aspects get no response at all from administrators - the issues are increasingly fine-detailed and baffling to people from *outside* that culture or ethnic grouping. I think there is a fair (and growing) percentage of articles that have simply being abandoned to the POV pushers, virtual ghettos, because most of us just don't have the time or understanding to get involved at the level required. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm really getting sick to death of this place. 99% of the admin corps are useless and won't go near any problems involving WP:RS, WP:V or WP:NPOV. Their chief obsessions are policing "civility" (as if this were a ladies' finishing school, not an encyclopaedia), hanging out on IRC with their 13-year old buddies and making the world safe from the monster Giano. I don't know whether the problem is lack of brains, lack of balls or both. You can see what I was dealing with at Chechen people by looking at that user's first edit there this week [1]. As I said on ANI at 8.46 this morning: "KK arrived and slapped a 'citation needed' tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources". The later edits were even worse. In spite of this, not one single admin took any action against this guy, they just allowed the thread to degenerate into the usual obfuscation, sidetracking and insults (the guy even claimed it was my fault he kept adding the dubious content: "Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached?"). Still no admin response. I presented clear evidence the guy had being playing fast and loose with his alleged sources (which, it turned out, he hadn't even read). Still no admin response. Next the guy started arguing with the reliable sources I had provided, questioning credentialed academics who have published English-language books with Routledge. His reason: "I don't like it". His National Bolshevik supporting friend even libelled these academics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Still no admin response. The guy kept trying to add the dubious stuff back to the article again, I reverted and added sourced material. Then I was blocked for 3RR (without having received a warning) by some novice admin who couldn't be bothered to do me the courtesy of reading up on the dispute. Just unbelievable. -- Folantin ( talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. He seems to be hopping IPs, so I don't know how much good the warning will do. Could you also check out a budding revert war between me and another user at Religious antisemitism? He seems to think that an antisemitic image should simply be called "vivid" and is insisting on a specific page number being cited in a quotation in the image caption. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thx for the background. It looks like a flavour of dictionary-lawyering. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: what constitutes a personal webpage is defined by general perception, not the article Personal web page, and few editors would perceive a one-person show in free webspace as anything but. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just saw you on SV's page, and did this: [4]. Probably you wanted this to be done or did you mean something different? -- Bhadani ( talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What is 'multi-revised' mean when you use the term? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your words more than anything else said in a long time.
I have indeed been trying very hard to be civil.
This is an exceedingly hard thing to do when almost alone.
Patience under pressure is almost impossible to prove.
I keep being put in a situation where I am supposed to admit to being uncivil,
or end up being called uncivil for denying it!
I wish it would all go away, but how can it?
Again, for your words. Thank you, thank you. Alastair Haines ( talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I added a link to www.greatwallforum.com to some Great Wall of China pages as follows:
You objected to these links as promotional links. I disagree. The Great Wall Forum is non-profit, non-commercial, and advertising-free. It has more information on the Great Wall of China than any other site on the Internet. It has information, maps, and other material that is not available anywhere else. It's a very useful resource and I think it's a disservice to Wikipedia visitors to not allow a link to this site just because it happens to be in a forum format. The purpose of the forum format is to allow other Great Wall of China experts to make contributions. Thanks, Bryan Feldman Bryanfeldman ( talk) 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug, in what capacity do you represent Wikipedia? Thanks, Bryanfeldman ( talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am just an editor doing what editors do. I gather you are new? Are you going to take up my suggestion? Doug Weller ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, not much point. I noted your interpretation of the guidelines and raised it here [6] which I suggest you read. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I did take your suggestion, and I also read your note on guidelines, which I appreciate your clarifying. I still feel the same way: Wikipedia readers should have the opportunity to view a website that has the best available information on the topic in which they are interested. I sense that a desire to follow rules is getting in the way of common sense here. By the way, the links we're discussing were in place for over five months before they were removed...and the links to poor-quality, personal sites with photo collections remain now. I don't understand this. Bryanfeldman ( talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Doug, After a chat with Gwen Gail, we have reinstated my revised page at the 'sandbox' here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox
We require editors such as yourself to make the page perfect so it can be reinstated...Would you be so kind as to visit the page and offer suggestions? Thank You. SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, you are quite right. I am having trouble finding good, solid sources online. Jack1956 ( talk) 12:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just put together a page here for the taskforce. I didn't have time to make it very sophisticated, so now it pretty much amounts to an article and participant's list. --- G. T. N. —Preceding comment was added at 02:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I will go to my local library and get the full page soon. Hope that helps. Heja Helweda ( talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Weller: I am grateful to you very much for your kind message, your warm welcome and the advices and pages that you indicated to me. I understand perfectly the reversion and that you explain to me on the use of the J; the truth is that I did not think about the effects on the links, I can see now the problem for english readers and wikiarticles. In any case, I will bear all it in mind. Thanks again, and regards. -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
your recent edit to 'cunningly' in the battle section, you removed that word, i honestly dont remember putting that word, it may be part of the sentence i got from one of the books, next time ask me if not sure, its hard to tell whats from book or what is that i wrote. anyways, tell me were the word cunningly was when you deleted it, so i can check if it was from the books or not. and i dont put LOADS of OR, it may apear like that. but i try my best to put LOADS of references.So i just want it you to know that on your talk page.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
After reading the battle again, the only part that i wrote was the 'In Herodotus histories, which was almost the last sentence, and everything before that was from Dunckers book, so i think you removed a word from the sentence in the book.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Hi,
I am glad that you found the info. Anyway I went to my local library and made a copy of p.661 of Amelie Kuhrt's book (The Ancient Near East, vol.II, 1997). Here is the second paragraph on p.661: ( I also took a low quality picture of the page, though it is a bit hard to read, my cam not that good :)
Cyrus achievements can only be described as spectacular: in less than thirty years, he brought a vast territory under the control of a kingdom which, at the beginning of his reign, had been tiny. He was a brilliant tactician and strategist, able to move rapidly across enormous distances, take his opponents by surprise, and make calculated use of brutal and placatory gestures. The Persians celebrated his fame in song and story (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.1). His astonishing success led rapidly to the creation of innumerable popular stories, which obscured his true background: he was presented variously as the grandson of the Median king, Astyages, exposed by his jealous grandfather, brought up by humble herding folk, ultimately identified and eventually returned to his parents (Herodotus 1.107-108), and as the son of poverty-stricken parents who worked his way up at the Median court and eventually overthrew the Medes. Other stories abounded, according to Herodotus. They are typical of the tales told about culture-heroes and founders of great empires (e.g. Sargon of Agade, Moses, Romulus and Remus). They illustrate the cultural and political importance of the protagonist, but cannot be relied on as a guide to historical reality. In the case of Cyrus, we have his own testimony, which flatly contradicts the later romances created by his countrymen; we know that he was preceded as king of Persia by his father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Heja Helweda ( talk) 00:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree he novelizes some parts, But im AFRAID it might have been a 'cunningly' he got from the original work of Nicolas, thats what i mean. if you could just tell me were it was in the sentence that you deleted, i appreciate it, i will not put it back in if it was just OR, so dont worry, i would put it back in if it comes directly from the book. DONT FORGET TO TELL ME. by me checking were the word came from we can once and for solve this mystery, then almost nothing will be wrong with this article.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
and secondly tell me how i can nominate or an admin nominate this article to at least a start class, i think the battle of hyrba article already looks intricate, referenced, and highly detailed enough.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
hi. I appreciate your cordial approach, as evidenced in the edit summary. however, could you please tell me why you removed my sourced reference and information on the tribe of Dan? My sourced were well-known published works, not fringe in any way. Sorry, but I don't see any basis for excluding them. it doesn't matter if the theory is unusual, as long as it is well-sourced. I don;t see what basis there is for removing that material. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Guess what, I found it, here it is, the word cunningly apears in the part that Duncker is writing the account of nicolas word for word, and in the account of nicolas the word 'cunningly' apears! [7] So now i have put the word cunningly back in. And im going to check if in fixing errors, antria the user might have deleted some words from the original account on acident like you did.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Hello, I've noticed (after our encounter at Dendera light) that you edit/improve articles including pseudoscientific or fringe positions. While I'm not claiming that this is such a case (I simply don't know), in Spherical Earth, the Indian section uses some rather spurious sources (with no page numbers mentioned either, it'd be a bit difficult trying to browse a 19th century 400-page work to find that one citation supporting the argument). Would you care to take a look at it? Regards. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Doug, pleased to meet you. I am having real problems with this internet troll User talk:24.185.128.31 on the Jat people article. Please get him blocked also please put the Jat people article in your wikipedia watchlist and revert if he strikes again. Thank you.-- James smith2 ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Weller: I would be grateful to you if you could check my additions in the article about "Corocotta", both of Wiki policies and probable faults of my English draft (;-). Thank you very much. Best regards -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I finish of doing several complements in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I (quote of the year 380 catholicism decree and her footnotes now 9-10). I hope not to bother you very much if... And after I (and you) will rest some days. Best regards. -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
-I have read again the pages that you was indicating, but I do not find to what type of problems you refer, or in what article (Corocotta or Theodosius?). Might you be more concrete of what problem/s it would treat? Thank you.-- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 13:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see, thanks for your opinion. To that I can say that an article of mine exists already in Internet, of February, 2005, which I linked in the note 1 ( there from: "Text and context they will make easier value the nickname that follows to Grunnius, "Corocotta", that is the same of the thief -lestés in Greek - mentioned by Cassius Dio 56, 43, 3... "). On the other hand, as I say in the same note, the corresponding article is going to appear in a scientific accredited journal, since it is my custom (reflecting only approx. the half). In the meanwhile, I added the principal arguments of my revision, brief summarized, with his verifiable quote. It might be analyzed as a warning rather than a "conflict of interests", since my principal interest would not be that my proposal was known among the English-speaker, but among the Spanish-speaker. I believe that in cases as this one it would be more important to call the attention of the reader on the possible mistake that can contain that in the wikiarticle is exposed as certain. That, besides, I respected. Another thing would be if I had erased the previous text, but only I have added the alternative. Regards. -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think he is a troll given the way he has spelt coulourful in his username. Regards -- Matilda talk 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug, thank you for the generalized comments. Concerning the body of Wikipedia articles, your stated ban on self-publishing is clear, and I fully agree. My point discusses Wikipedia links, an area filled with personal blogs, and unscholarly clap-trap.
In passing, Egyptian fractions is a topic that you know nothing, a point that means nothing, since few may be expert in one or two fields. My issue tends to be, you may have a friendship with David Eppstein, a wonderful modern mathematician, who knows a great deal about modern Egyptian fractions, but almost nothing of the ancient texts that had not used algorithms. An introduction to the topic is provided by http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Arithmetics.html, a math Encyclopedia that David tends to approve.
The problem to Wikipedia is that David has improperly acted as a Wikipedia "Egyptian fractions" gate-keeper for several years, overly protecting his 1992 "Intelligencer" journal article on 10 Egyptian fraction algorithms, and 15 + years of subsequent research. Initially, when David published his 1992 views on the internet, Kevin Brown and I engaged David in a positive debate, adding several modern algorithms to his review. A few years ago, I came across well documented proof that medievals, Greeks, and others had used zero algorithm when 3,500 years of Egyptian fractions (rational numbers) were discussed. This is the point that angers David to the point of being uncivil, time after time, to myself.
Civility should be a prime concern to Wikipedia. I would appreciate you passing along that point to David, as you have appropriately passed on Wikipedia's self-publishing ban to myself.
Best Regards,
Milo Gardner
Hi Milo So far as I know, I've never had any contact with Eppstein. You've obviously had an unhappy experience with him, and I regret it if I have made life more difficult for you. As you say, my knowledge here is not about the subject but about how Wikipedia works, and I am well aware that at times it means that very interesting and sometimes excellent sources simply can't be used. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug,
Thank you for the note. In certain respects, I find your position odd. Wikipedia 'gatekeepers' do censor personal blogs, maintaining their own blogs/papers, while censoring those with which they disagree. The Wikipedia 'gatekeeper' problem exists in many areas. I ran into a committee of 'editors' when documenting my great-grandfather's life, using several books, and newspaper articles, written by others. Persistent 'gatekeepers' do great hard to academic speech. How can that Wikipedia problem be minimized?
Thanks,
Milo
Hi Doug:
It appears to me that Eppstein certainly considers himself a gatekeeper. Even though you may not 'know' Eppstein, he acted in a manner that brought the personal blog issue to your attention. How else would you have known of our mini-'wiki-war'? If you look at that the history of Egyptian fraction entry for yesterday, you'll see that I first edited one of two of my blogs/encyclopedia articles, replacing one with two new blogs, thereby bringing about Eppstein's wrath. Read Eppstein's uncivil note, "Previous edit munged a valid planetmath link in an attempt to stamp out all traces of vile evil blogistan from Wikipedia. Fix lossage but remove the blog" and try not to smile. I did not.
A second example is provided by a 2/07 entry for my Utah elected-politician great grandfather. The wiki page was attacked by Utah PC-types, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Archibald_Gardner. Read its discussion page. You may see that Californian views of late 1800 Utahans began a 'wiki-war'. I was out-numbered, so a bare-bones entry was completed, excising much of Archie's achievements. Only blog links provided by one of my nephews, and a couple of others, provided a fair portrait of state infrastructure-builder's life.
Thanks,
Milo
Hiya,
Unfortunately, I don't know about release dates specifically -- but it won't be in the next few days, sadly! I'd give it about a month to delivery. The U.S. edition will be released first, but I don't know if it will be substantially delayed in the U.K. -- hopefully not. Thanks for your interest! cheers, -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 13:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Baseball Bugs just edited the article to delete most instances of CE entirely. I reverted. I'm going to talk to him on his talk page. I hope this settles things. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug, with all due respect, "Archaeologist and historians often use BCE/CE now" is a matter of opinion and up for debate. If there is one good reason to use the BC/AD format is that at least one of the sources cited, the author uses BC/AD as the format, thus the reason My sons paper was dinged. I am just suggesting that since the authors of the article have stated that they have no preference, lets use the BC/AD system. I do not wish to become involved in an edit war, and since you are far more experienced in wikipedia editing than I, could you please point me in the right direction so that I may make a case for the change in a proper way. Thank you--
Rob carmack (
talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess, I have to reference, Nearest place to the unknown location of Hyrba today. Just joking, I went on Google Images, and typed in ancient median cities, and as you know, Medes are the Kurds of today. So I also typed in Hyrba, and believe it or not I got the picture, from what I know, it looks like an ancient Iranian settlement in Media. So that is the closest picture you can get for an ancient median city in ruins. Don't worry, I'll take the word unknown out so the reader won't get confused, or I might change the whole sentence, thanks.-- 153.18.19.109 ( talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Hi Doug, I came across this rather odd article: Kanawha Madonna. It clearly needs some major work, and knowing your interest in pseudoarchaeology, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I apologize for the addition of my sitelinks to your website, I've just hired someone to market my site to get a better ranking, it seems he abused my Wikipedia account priveleges. I was told today about all these backlinks i had from Wiki, but just found your messages posted in my account, so i've asked him not to touch my Wiki account in future. I request that my post on the Basil Valentine page be restored as it was a genuine article that deserves a mention. If you do not still have it here it is...
"The Valentine/Paracelsus connection Hermetic student Joshua Arent suggests that Basil Valentine was merely a nom de plume of German physician and alchemist Paracelsus, their works having a very close correspondence in philosophy, methodology and demeanor. Neither Valentine nor Paracelsus mentioned the other even though they shared exactly the same perspective on Alchemical and Spagyric philosophy. Both alchemists lived in roughly the same time frame, were native to Germany, shared the same religious preference (Benedictine Christianity) and shared an extreme disapproval of the medical establishment which they vocalized in their writings. It should be noted that early in his life Paracelsus was getting used to the monastic life whilst living with his father in a Benedictine cloister studying Alchemy and Latin.[1] The name Paracelsus was also a self chosen nom de plume of his real name Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim. Although there is controversy over when Basil Valentine existed, Waite points out that it can only be between the invention of printing and the time his works were published, i.e. from late 15th Century to the very beginning of the 1600’s. This is because of Valentine’s line in the ‘Triumphal Chariot’, “You should know that Antimony is used for a good many purposes besides those of the typographer.”
This possible double identity allows for a clearer contextual understanding between both Paracelsus' and Valentine's works."
I apologise for the inconvenience, Joshua Arent ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, last time I made a big statement on why not to delete Siege of Ecbatana, go on the page where people discuss if it should be deleted or not, and I wrote and gave some sources and other info to how it nearly resembles the Siege of the Sogdian Rock in Alexanders battles, which the Sogdians just surrendered to him, and no actual fighting to place, I think the issue of how some users pay less attention or ignore the issues I raise on Wikipedia should be addressed to the administraters. More and more users are flip flopping, or deleting or merging articles when other articles are worse, and not paying attention to the other articles(like siege of the sogdian rock) that need more attention than the Persian Revolt. Like I said to Pepperkingiron, I need almost 2 weeks of sourcing and expanding my articles. But it seems that no one cares. There was 7/11 people that were in favor of either KEEPING OR RENAMING the Siege of Ecbatana. But it got deleted. AND IT DID HAVE SOME TEXT, AND PROMISED TO BE EXPANDED UPON WHEN DELETED! And the other articles that I have created in the Persian Revolt have allot of info I can get on the net. So I pray you and other users give a little bit more thought before DESTROYING or MERGING my work!-- Ariobarza ( talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
From time to time right-wing fanatics discover the JBS entry and try to turn it into a sanitized propaganda page. Feel free to attempt to establish sanity. The current page is a disaster because left-wing and right-wing fanatics are constantly battling over it. As for the JBS blog: 1) if the blog is not controlled from the main office in Appleton, Wisconsin, it does not represent offical JBS reality. 2) This Iowa blog appears to be totally lunatic drivel that does not represent official JBS national policy (and I have read their publications for 30 years. 3) the posting on the Iowa blog is so ignorant that it does not realize that the paramilitary Minutemen of the 1960s has no connection with the anti-immigrant Minutemen of 2008. Best wishes with mud wrestling.-- Cberlet ( talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm unable to find evidence that the website is in fact his own. Has he admitted it? Discussion started at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#user:_Marburg72. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping me a note. I'll fact check first, but I'm sure I'll be able to vouch for you if necessary.
I doubt very much that you've done anything wrong. And I'm certain you haven't done anything that can't be fixed—by definition of a Wiki.
Apologies are wonderful things. That's the only place real damage can happen—if they're not offered when appropriate. Wiki editors are real people and real contributions have real psychological effects. Apologies are normally more powerfully positive (if sincere) than any ripples that required them were ever negative.
You can trust mediation. It's not perfect but mediators stick with the issues until they're resolved. Join the mediation team! Or maybe not (LOL). Contributing at low volatility pages at Wiki is tons of fun. Some pages are for tough-nuts.
Say what you said to me (more or less) to a mediator and you're sweet.
Just take this as a pretty clear signal that Taiwan boi is seriously interested in settling the text of that article. This mediation thing is more about him than you, and good for him!
I sincerely doubt you'll need me, but if you do, give a holler, I'll check facts and be creative about suggesting a warm fuzzy way forward. I'll have your peace of mind firmly on my agenda.
I respect Taiwan boi, I'm probably as fiercesome as he is when I'm crossed, but that's not the role I like to play. It's probably the same with him.
LOL I'm glad I've not been in an argument against Taiwan, or against PiCo, I think they'd both outlast me several times over. ;)
Anyway, I've said plenty. Thanks heaps for sharing this with me, I'll be there if you need, but you won't, you'll be fine.
Just keep on enjoying Wiki-ing! :) Alastair Haines ( talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, the mediation to which I was referring is informal mediation, which comes before formal mediation. I have also sought third party advice and editorial assistance. The abuse of that article is an absolute disgrace, and while vandals like PiCo have people like you as their cheerleaders, then nothing will ever be done about it. You were one of the editors who identified PiCo's material in the Documentary Hypothesis section as WP:COAT, and you were one of the editors who contributed to building the consensus as to what should be in that section, so your support of PiCo's removal of the material which was agreed on by consensus is incomprehensible. I am now going after every editor who assists PiCo's vandalism, and will seek to hold you all to the policies of Wikipedia. That is not an unreasonable expectation. If you intend to keep supporting PiCo's edits, then I will keep pursuing the conflict resolution process. If you don't, we can leave it here. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm entirely agree, it's a real problem and I think it's getting worse. If you notice, a lots of the conflicts that arrive at AN/I that have either a cultural and/or ethnic aspects get no response at all from administrators - the issues are increasingly fine-detailed and baffling to people from *outside* that culture or ethnic grouping. I think there is a fair (and growing) percentage of articles that have simply being abandoned to the POV pushers, virtual ghettos, because most of us just don't have the time or understanding to get involved at the level required. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm really getting sick to death of this place. 99% of the admin corps are useless and won't go near any problems involving WP:RS, WP:V or WP:NPOV. Their chief obsessions are policing "civility" (as if this were a ladies' finishing school, not an encyclopaedia), hanging out on IRC with their 13-year old buddies and making the world safe from the monster Giano. I don't know whether the problem is lack of brains, lack of balls or both. You can see what I was dealing with at Chechen people by looking at that user's first edit there this week [1]. As I said on ANI at 8.46 this morning: "KK arrived and slapped a 'citation needed' tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources". The later edits were even worse. In spite of this, not one single admin took any action against this guy, they just allowed the thread to degenerate into the usual obfuscation, sidetracking and insults (the guy even claimed it was my fault he kept adding the dubious content: "Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached?"). Still no admin response. I presented clear evidence the guy had being playing fast and loose with his alleged sources (which, it turned out, he hadn't even read). Still no admin response. Next the guy started arguing with the reliable sources I had provided, questioning credentialed academics who have published English-language books with Routledge. His reason: "I don't like it". His National Bolshevik supporting friend even libelled these academics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Still no admin response. The guy kept trying to add the dubious stuff back to the article again, I reverted and added sourced material. Then I was blocked for 3RR (without having received a warning) by some novice admin who couldn't be bothered to do me the courtesy of reading up on the dispute. Just unbelievable. -- Folantin ( talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. He seems to be hopping IPs, so I don't know how much good the warning will do. Could you also check out a budding revert war between me and another user at Religious antisemitism? He seems to think that an antisemitic image should simply be called "vivid" and is insisting on a specific page number being cited in a quotation in the image caption. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thx for the background. It looks like a flavour of dictionary-lawyering. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: what constitutes a personal webpage is defined by general perception, not the article Personal web page, and few editors would perceive a one-person show in free webspace as anything but. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just saw you on SV's page, and did this: [4]. Probably you wanted this to be done or did you mean something different? -- Bhadani ( talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What is 'multi-revised' mean when you use the term? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your words more than anything else said in a long time.
I have indeed been trying very hard to be civil.
This is an exceedingly hard thing to do when almost alone.
Patience under pressure is almost impossible to prove.
I keep being put in a situation where I am supposed to admit to being uncivil,
or end up being called uncivil for denying it!
I wish it would all go away, but how can it?
Again, for your words. Thank you, thank you. Alastair Haines ( talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I added a link to www.greatwallforum.com to some Great Wall of China pages as follows:
You objected to these links as promotional links. I disagree. The Great Wall Forum is non-profit, non-commercial, and advertising-free. It has more information on the Great Wall of China than any other site on the Internet. It has information, maps, and other material that is not available anywhere else. It's a very useful resource and I think it's a disservice to Wikipedia visitors to not allow a link to this site just because it happens to be in a forum format. The purpose of the forum format is to allow other Great Wall of China experts to make contributions. Thanks, Bryan Feldman Bryanfeldman ( talk) 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug, in what capacity do you represent Wikipedia? Thanks, Bryanfeldman ( talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am just an editor doing what editors do. I gather you are new? Are you going to take up my suggestion? Doug Weller ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, not much point. I noted your interpretation of the guidelines and raised it here [6] which I suggest you read. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I did take your suggestion, and I also read your note on guidelines, which I appreciate your clarifying. I still feel the same way: Wikipedia readers should have the opportunity to view a website that has the best available information on the topic in which they are interested. I sense that a desire to follow rules is getting in the way of common sense here. By the way, the links we're discussing were in place for over five months before they were removed...and the links to poor-quality, personal sites with photo collections remain now. I don't understand this. Bryanfeldman ( talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Doug, After a chat with Gwen Gail, we have reinstated my revised page at the 'sandbox' here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox
We require editors such as yourself to make the page perfect so it can be reinstated...Would you be so kind as to visit the page and offer suggestions? Thank You. SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, you are quite right. I am having trouble finding good, solid sources online. Jack1956 ( talk) 12:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just put together a page here for the taskforce. I didn't have time to make it very sophisticated, so now it pretty much amounts to an article and participant's list. --- G. T. N. —Preceding comment was added at 02:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I will go to my local library and get the full page soon. Hope that helps. Heja Helweda ( talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Weller: I am grateful to you very much for your kind message, your warm welcome and the advices and pages that you indicated to me. I understand perfectly the reversion and that you explain to me on the use of the J; the truth is that I did not think about the effects on the links, I can see now the problem for english readers and wikiarticles. In any case, I will bear all it in mind. Thanks again, and regards. -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
your recent edit to 'cunningly' in the battle section, you removed that word, i honestly dont remember putting that word, it may be part of the sentence i got from one of the books, next time ask me if not sure, its hard to tell whats from book or what is that i wrote. anyways, tell me were the word cunningly was when you deleted it, so i can check if it was from the books or not. and i dont put LOADS of OR, it may apear like that. but i try my best to put LOADS of references.So i just want it you to know that on your talk page.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
After reading the battle again, the only part that i wrote was the 'In Herodotus histories, which was almost the last sentence, and everything before that was from Dunckers book, so i think you removed a word from the sentence in the book.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Hi,
I am glad that you found the info. Anyway I went to my local library and made a copy of p.661 of Amelie Kuhrt's book (The Ancient Near East, vol.II, 1997). Here is the second paragraph on p.661: ( I also took a low quality picture of the page, though it is a bit hard to read, my cam not that good :)
Cyrus achievements can only be described as spectacular: in less than thirty years, he brought a vast territory under the control of a kingdom which, at the beginning of his reign, had been tiny. He was a brilliant tactician and strategist, able to move rapidly across enormous distances, take his opponents by surprise, and make calculated use of brutal and placatory gestures. The Persians celebrated his fame in song and story (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.1). His astonishing success led rapidly to the creation of innumerable popular stories, which obscured his true background: he was presented variously as the grandson of the Median king, Astyages, exposed by his jealous grandfather, brought up by humble herding folk, ultimately identified and eventually returned to his parents (Herodotus 1.107-108), and as the son of poverty-stricken parents who worked his way up at the Median court and eventually overthrew the Medes. Other stories abounded, according to Herodotus. They are typical of the tales told about culture-heroes and founders of great empires (e.g. Sargon of Agade, Moses, Romulus and Remus). They illustrate the cultural and political importance of the protagonist, but cannot be relied on as a guide to historical reality. In the case of Cyrus, we have his own testimony, which flatly contradicts the later romances created by his countrymen; we know that he was preceded as king of Persia by his father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Heja Helweda ( talk) 00:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree he novelizes some parts, But im AFRAID it might have been a 'cunningly' he got from the original work of Nicolas, thats what i mean. if you could just tell me were it was in the sentence that you deleted, i appreciate it, i will not put it back in if it was just OR, so dont worry, i would put it back in if it comes directly from the book. DONT FORGET TO TELL ME. by me checking were the word came from we can once and for solve this mystery, then almost nothing will be wrong with this article.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
and secondly tell me how i can nominate or an admin nominate this article to at least a start class, i think the battle of hyrba article already looks intricate, referenced, and highly detailed enough.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
hi. I appreciate your cordial approach, as evidenced in the edit summary. however, could you please tell me why you removed my sourced reference and information on the tribe of Dan? My sourced were well-known published works, not fringe in any way. Sorry, but I don't see any basis for excluding them. it doesn't matter if the theory is unusual, as long as it is well-sourced. I don;t see what basis there is for removing that material. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Guess what, I found it, here it is, the word cunningly apears in the part that Duncker is writing the account of nicolas word for word, and in the account of nicolas the word 'cunningly' apears! [7] So now i have put the word cunningly back in. And im going to check if in fixing errors, antria the user might have deleted some words from the original account on acident like you did.-- 67.180.225.250 ( talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Hello, I've noticed (after our encounter at Dendera light) that you edit/improve articles including pseudoscientific or fringe positions. While I'm not claiming that this is such a case (I simply don't know), in Spherical Earth, the Indian section uses some rather spurious sources (with no page numbers mentioned either, it'd be a bit difficult trying to browse a 19th century 400-page work to find that one citation supporting the argument). Would you care to take a look at it? Regards. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Doug, pleased to meet you. I am having real problems with this internet troll User talk:24.185.128.31 on the Jat people article. Please get him blocked also please put the Jat people article in your wikipedia watchlist and revert if he strikes again. Thank you.-- James smith2 ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Weller: I would be grateful to you if you could check my additions in the article about "Corocotta", both of Wiki policies and probable faults of my English draft (;-). Thank you very much. Best regards -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I finish of doing several complements in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I (quote of the year 380 catholicism decree and her footnotes now 9-10). I hope not to bother you very much if... And after I (and you) will rest some days. Best regards. -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
-I have read again the pages that you was indicating, but I do not find to what type of problems you refer, or in what article (Corocotta or Theodosius?). Might you be more concrete of what problem/s it would treat? Thank you.-- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 13:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see, thanks for your opinion. To that I can say that an article of mine exists already in Internet, of February, 2005, which I linked in the note 1 ( there from: "Text and context they will make easier value the nickname that follows to Grunnius, "Corocotta", that is the same of the thief -lestés in Greek - mentioned by Cassius Dio 56, 43, 3... "). On the other hand, as I say in the same note, the corresponding article is going to appear in a scientific accredited journal, since it is my custom (reflecting only approx. the half). In the meanwhile, I added the principal arguments of my revision, brief summarized, with his verifiable quote. It might be analyzed as a warning rather than a "conflict of interests", since my principal interest would not be that my proposal was known among the English-speaker, but among the Spanish-speaker. I believe that in cases as this one it would be more important to call the attention of the reader on the possible mistake that can contain that in the wikiarticle is exposed as certain. That, besides, I respected. Another thing would be if I had erased the previous text, but only I have added the alternative. Regards. -- Alicia M. Canto ( talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think he is a troll given the way he has spelt coulourful in his username. Regards -- Matilda talk 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug, thank you for the generalized comments. Concerning the body of Wikipedia articles, your stated ban on self-publishing is clear, and I fully agree. My point discusses Wikipedia links, an area filled with personal blogs, and unscholarly clap-trap.
In passing, Egyptian fractions is a topic that you know nothing, a point that means nothing, since few may be expert in one or two fields. My issue tends to be, you may have a friendship with David Eppstein, a wonderful modern mathematician, who knows a great deal about modern Egyptian fractions, but almost nothing of the ancient texts that had not used algorithms. An introduction to the topic is provided by http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Arithmetics.html, a math Encyclopedia that David tends to approve.
The problem to Wikipedia is that David has improperly acted as a Wikipedia "Egyptian fractions" gate-keeper for several years, overly protecting his 1992 "Intelligencer" journal article on 10 Egyptian fraction algorithms, and 15 + years of subsequent research. Initially, when David published his 1992 views on the internet, Kevin Brown and I engaged David in a positive debate, adding several modern algorithms to his review. A few years ago, I came across well documented proof that medievals, Greeks, and others had used zero algorithm when 3,500 years of Egyptian fractions (rational numbers) were discussed. This is the point that angers David to the point of being uncivil, time after time, to myself.
Civility should be a prime concern to Wikipedia. I would appreciate you passing along that point to David, as you have appropriately passed on Wikipedia's self-publishing ban to myself.
Best Regards,
Milo Gardner
Hi Milo So far as I know, I've never had any contact with Eppstein. You've obviously had an unhappy experience with him, and I regret it if I have made life more difficult for you. As you say, my knowledge here is not about the subject but about how Wikipedia works, and I am well aware that at times it means that very interesting and sometimes excellent sources simply can't be used. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug,
Thank you for the note. In certain respects, I find your position odd. Wikipedia 'gatekeepers' do censor personal blogs, maintaining their own blogs/papers, while censoring those with which they disagree. The Wikipedia 'gatekeeper' problem exists in many areas. I ran into a committee of 'editors' when documenting my great-grandfather's life, using several books, and newspaper articles, written by others. Persistent 'gatekeepers' do great hard to academic speech. How can that Wikipedia problem be minimized?
Thanks,
Milo
Hi Doug:
It appears to me that Eppstein certainly considers himself a gatekeeper. Even though you may not 'know' Eppstein, he acted in a manner that brought the personal blog issue to your attention. How else would you have known of our mini-'wiki-war'? If you look at that the history of Egyptian fraction entry for yesterday, you'll see that I first edited one of two of my blogs/encyclopedia articles, replacing one with two new blogs, thereby bringing about Eppstein's wrath. Read Eppstein's uncivil note, "Previous edit munged a valid planetmath link in an attempt to stamp out all traces of vile evil blogistan from Wikipedia. Fix lossage but remove the blog" and try not to smile. I did not.
A second example is provided by a 2/07 entry for my Utah elected-politician great grandfather. The wiki page was attacked by Utah PC-types, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Archibald_Gardner. Read its discussion page. You may see that Californian views of late 1800 Utahans began a 'wiki-war'. I was out-numbered, so a bare-bones entry was completed, excising much of Archie's achievements. Only blog links provided by one of my nephews, and a couple of others, provided a fair portrait of state infrastructure-builder's life.
Thanks,
Milo
Hiya,
Unfortunately, I don't know about release dates specifically -- but it won't be in the next few days, sadly! I'd give it about a month to delivery. The U.S. edition will be released first, but I don't know if it will be substantially delayed in the U.K. -- hopefully not. Thanks for your interest! cheers, -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 13:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Baseball Bugs just edited the article to delete most instances of CE entirely. I reverted. I'm going to talk to him on his talk page. I hope this settles things. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug, with all due respect, "Archaeologist and historians often use BCE/CE now" is a matter of opinion and up for debate. If there is one good reason to use the BC/AD format is that at least one of the sources cited, the author uses BC/AD as the format, thus the reason My sons paper was dinged. I am just suggesting that since the authors of the article have stated that they have no preference, lets use the BC/AD system. I do not wish to become involved in an edit war, and since you are far more experienced in wikipedia editing than I, could you please point me in the right direction so that I may make a case for the change in a proper way. Thank you--
Rob carmack (
talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess, I have to reference, Nearest place to the unknown location of Hyrba today. Just joking, I went on Google Images, and typed in ancient median cities, and as you know, Medes are the Kurds of today. So I also typed in Hyrba, and believe it or not I got the picture, from what I know, it looks like an ancient Iranian settlement in Media. So that is the closest picture you can get for an ancient median city in ruins. Don't worry, I'll take the word unknown out so the reader won't get confused, or I might change the whole sentence, thanks.-- 153.18.19.109 ( talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Hi Doug, I came across this rather odd article: Kanawha Madonna. It clearly needs some major work, and knowing your interest in pseudoarchaeology, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)