Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
16 Jun 2005 – 2 Aug 2008 • 3 Aug 2008 – 16 Feb 2009 • 17 Feb 2009 – 10 Jan 2010 • 11 Jan 2010 – 20 Sep 2010 • 6 Oct 2010 – 6 Mar 2011 |
October 2010 == == Your recent edits Please do not add anti-promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to American Academy of Financial Management. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for hate speech, advertising or self promotion. Thank you. GordianG Talk Contribs 17:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for improving the page! It's really nice to see someone adding to a page I made! And very good, thoughtful changes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but the article should include the government links, the top US accreditation agencies of ACBSP and AACSB and the press articulat, and WSJ and FINRAs clear documentation of AAFM Accreditation/exams and degree requirements, and governmental referneces to AAFM.
Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM around the world. Focusing on one article as a negative event seems to be Black Washing. Please help the USA AAFM Board Article be legitimate and contain valid references, citations, and information.
Most of the original information that is included in todays article was written by you and OK with you last year. Not sure why it should be hidden now? Please help get this article right or please ask another editor to help who cares about the content of these financial related educational articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 ( talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Here are several of the original versions of the AAFM article with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=392623589 or this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=383577091 I would like to compromise with you and work with other mediators to refurbish and expand the article while protecting the integrity of it also. It seems that the CFP, CFA and AAFM articles are constantly vandalized. Is there a way to protect them? Do you want me to find some other finance editors and request some help from neutral parties CertifiedFinancialAnalyst ( talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Based on your insights, I researched the history, and before he edit war, I found some articles from your edits. Here are two original versions from your edits. Can we repost the substance of your original articles because they are more informative and authentic with notable references. My objective is to keep a neutral point of view and compromise by using your prior works.
RJC #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=246379035
RJC #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=242810367 CertifiedFinancialAnalyst ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The quotes above state, "I gave reasons for trimming the article back in July 2009" However, these revisions are from 2010 after the article was cleaned up and made neutral. These examples below contain much useful information and links
I propose that we compromise and bring in some neutral parties to bring the article back to where it contains relevant citations and information that parallels similar articles from the same type of organization such as CFP or CFA. CFP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Financial_Planner CFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst
The CFA and CFP articles are much longer with more citations. Example, CFA is over 3400 words with over 30 citations. AAFM used to have a similar amount of citations and information, but now is only about 430 words.
In sum, the AAFM article should be allowed to mirror organization that are exact or similar in nature such as CFP and CFA or PMI Institute.
Can you help improve the article? CertifiedFinancialAnalyst ( talk) 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear RJC, We must remove the illegal mistakes about degrees and such. Degrees in the USA are offered by universities and colleges and NOT organizations such as AAFM, CFA or CFP.
All of your criticism about the AAFM remains. I did not remove any of it. Your criticism continues to be the majority of the articles content. I merely added the new evidence and signed contracts that are published on the AAFM website that debunk the Wall Street Journal mistakes. Let's try to compromise by creating a real article. I have not added any products or services to promote. I merely edited the article to add references and citations from the government, law school, US financial regulatory authority.
Further, without AAFM citations about accredited programs such as the AAFM sponsored graduate law school certification program and the US government approved ACBSP accreditation alliance, the article is deceiving and intentionally biased.
It appears that you are a senior editor of WIKI and know all of the rules about COI and NPOV. Maybe you can ask for some help with this article to improve it with a balanced approach?
History shows that you are the only editor that seems to be concerned about this article, but we need some help as it appears that there has been 3 years of vandalism to this article.
If you have not read the new links, the signed contracts, evidence and alliance citations in the new press release by the AAFM, maybe you should [1] This evidence, seems to contradict the entire WSJ article. Historically, it appears that you were the editor who caught the WSJ with the mistakes in the first place.
Cfpcertified ( talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)CFPCertified Cfpcertified ( talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Modified the Plato section. See what you think. Oxford73 ( talk) 09:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) This is referring to the Natural Law page. Oxford73 ( talk) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at the Plato page and there does not seem to be anything about the dialectic. Also noticed it is a restricted page. Not come across one of those before. Would you like to write something about the dialectic in Plato? Oxford73 ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you about the contested nature of it. Oxford73 ( talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Added a very brief summary re dialectic. Oxford73 ( talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes thanks for adding that, I was going to go back and inform the person that the "now you can't see how naughty I've been" approach is akin to cats who have their hind legs and tail sticking out from behind the sofa etc. and assume that they can't be seen.
I am just manually reverting the edits that this person made to Mongol Empire, I do not think they are a native, Greekish I would say by the user name and the articles edited, in this article they have changed eventually for basically concerning the reach of the empire, that is totally not the same meaning or intention.
If you are an admin, please keep an eye on this person, which I suppose you're doing, I just totally reverted the Alexander the Great article where the person removed all of the adverbs, I checked one source and the adverb was used in the source, it appears to be a well constructed and researched article so for someone to just stomp in and remove nuanced material is a bit off, really. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: well last night the user blanked their page again and I saw it on my watchlist within a couple of minutes, so I decided to put the heebie-jeebies up them and it seems to have had some effect - Iritakamas. A little comic relief! CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that you should add the picture from the Oxford Edition of On The Genealogy of Morality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jar2187 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I have started many disambituations pages similar to this one, only that some have hundreds of links and many see alsos. However, if you think it would be better off as a portal, we could start a discussion on Portal talk:Science. I created the page because there was a science of morality article, so I figured why not have a morality of science page. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you changed the dates from BCE to BC on Aegean civilizations. The wikipedia guideline on this ( WP:ERA) suggests leaving dates as they are. RJC 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi RJC, Just wanted to say thank you for improving my edit insertion for the QS ranking on this article. I've edited the last change you made as I felt the need to state in articles "what is" as opposed to "what isn't" in referenced citations. I hope we can agree on this to keep the neutrality of the article. Auditguy ( talk) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd be able to assist. I reverted twice an edit by editor, Nirjhara, in the article Indo-Aryan migration because I felt it was worded POV. I left clear comments on why it was removed, but the editor has put it back in twice without comment. When I looked into the editor's history I found they had added it to Proto-Indo-Europeans (and other articles), but it was removed by you and Dougweller in both cases for being fringe theory. Although I follow this article, I'm not knowledge on the topic and was hoping you may be able to step in? Thanks. BashBrannigan ( talk) 07:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As one of the main contributors to the Machiavelli article can you have a look on the talk page and consider the question of secondary sources. I see the other editors point, but am thinking it might lead to complaints that the article has poor sourcing and is too much of a pure summary?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What part of the Act as passed that I posted is inaccurate? I tried to be very careful and find the exact wording of the act as it was originally passed. Also, I tend to disagree that the whole act was "too much." The purpose of this act and its scope is hard for people nowadays to understand without reading the original wording. The part that is left today in the US Code is such a small percentage of the original act that one does not get whole flavor of the really sweeping nature of this bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbow ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion. I know Greek does sometimes get strangely Anglicised (I have included mention of such a pronunciation in the Nous article), but I do not think I ever heard anyone say the "i" in Nicomachus or Nicomachean anything like the way the brand "Nike" is pronounced, only the way people say "Nicholas", i.e. something like the original Greek. But the first line of Nicomachean Ethics has a source for such a diphthong pronunciation. (I wonder if the source really mentions the Ethics or just gives a general remark that Greek I often becomes "ai".) Is this something people say in American academia?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you've removed my note form the article Protagoras (dialogue). Please forgive me for my wrong grammar in the edits summary, the correct version of which shoud be "refining my note related to the Nietzsche's future criticism." But let me to defend myself a little against supposed original research. Nietzsche wasn't my source. The whole content of the note was supported by the dialogue and was designed to remind only the importance of the passage about "the impossibility of doing good willingly (or voluntarily) and necessity of knowledge for not being bad." This passage was as a whole omitted in the article. But I must admit, that Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil didn't quote hís source and wrote only about Socrates and Plato (§190). The themes are however equal... Chomsky ( talk) 08:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
But I understand, that to have an independent source supporting the connection between Nietzsche and Plato would be the best... Chomsky ( talk) 09:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added the omitted text into the article, already without any refference to Nietzsche. Chomsky ( talk) 14:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I must confess that a book, which I used from the Barron's Educational Series, Inc., don't contain any connection between Beyond Good and Evil and an idea of superman. I only still tend to original research myself... Chomsky ( talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear RJC, please give your thoughts on a proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#.22Genetic_Anthropology.22_section_needs_updating gd tms. Nirjhara ( talk) 04:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
Can you explain why you removed Eliza Dushku and instead inserted Gjeke Marinaj ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=443970290
Eliza Dushku should definately be in the infobox, Gjeke Marinaj is a translator, not known by nobody. 37.17.252.233 ( talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, you're absolutely right about Plato's Fifth Letter. I got my wording backwards with that edit. Cheers, CCS81 ( talk) 02:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
RJC, I see you take issue with me correcting a rule breach just because it was a few years ago. It's actually not quite as simple as this. Ever since User:Wetman broke the rules in Dec 2007 by taking it upon himself to change the whole article Poseidon from BC to BCE, multiple editors have noticed the problem and tried to correct it, but he keeps changing it back. He was even doing this in the article as recently as last year here, where he didn't even write an edit summary even though he wasn't reverting vandalism. Is that recent enough for you? The problem has only lasted this long because the editor who originally broke the rule has hijacked the article, treating it as his own and preventing other people from correcting it. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 00:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC))
A reminder -- Twinkle reverts are only to be used to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to revert you, but please see [1]. There has been a long saga with those sock puppet accounts. History2007 ( talk) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, You restored a map I had deleted from [ [2]]. I can accept user created maps, but this one is just sloppy. For example it shows little or no Haplogroup R1a in Iran which is factually wrong. Other areas of high concentration such as Siberia have also been omitted. The article already has a map based on Underhill et al. (2009), so there is no need to retain this erroneous one. Best, JS ( talk) 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes on the Leviathan (book) page in response to my comments. I did a little copy editing to your entry, which I hope you find satisfactory. Also, given the banner on the page calling for more references, I might suggest adding more citations to the entry. Socialtheorynow ( talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It may not be quite your thing, but Roberto Mangabeira Unger has some of the same issues (IMO) as Hobbes, so to speak. Perhaps you would take a look? William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophist (dialogue), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As noted here, the following has been posted online and a rough facsimile was emailed to the functionaries email list earlier this week, and then forwarded to the Foundation legal department. Frank | talk 04:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please don't shoot me; I'm the messenger. In case you've not seen it already at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management, I'm here to let you know about this page; it seems a thoroughly frivolous complaint, but it still might be worth your attention, since you are named in the complaint. Nyttend ( talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, RJC!
I saw you reverted some edits I made on this article, and was wondering whether you would discuss them with me. As to the question about "substance" and "origin": Simplicius informs us ( Dieltz/Kranz II.9) that Anaximander thought the beginning (ἀρχή) and element (στοιχεῖον) of all things (τῶν ὄντων) was the apeiron. In Pseudo-Plutarch we find that Anaximander's apeiron was "the whole cause of the whole creation and ruin [of the world]". (D/K II.10; Cf. D/K II.14)
To determine what he meant by this is hard enough as it is, so I used the interpretation found in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Plato by Cohen, Curd and Reeve. This work calls the apeiron the "material stuff out of which everything in the universe comes", (p. 10) which I worded as "substance", and "origin of the universe" ("substratum", I think, being hard to understand for the average reader). Furthermore the Greek term ἀρχή can be translated as "origin", although "first principle" may look better in this case.
I'd really like your input on this! Regards, Bahnheckl ( talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If you have a reference, why didn't you reintroduce the text with the citation instead of reverting my edit? I had know way of knowing if the text was true, so I certainly could not add a citation myself (as I did with the missing citation for the Huntington quote). It has been sitting there for five years awaiting a citation, so cutting it out was appropriate when I did it. Eodcarl ( talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
In regard to my recent excision of some material for Locke's Second Treatise, and your reversion of it, I've raised some questions on the article's talk page. I think the existing paragraph is sufficiently muddled logically that the article would be better without it. But, fair enough, this needs to be argued for, so I've outlined the argument there. No interest in starting an edit war for no good reason. 2601:7:2340:10:9DF4:B6F5:6844:65E2 ( talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
sweta sriram <swetasriram@gmail.com>, Vrishali Kemkar <vrishali.kemkar@bbcwindia.com>, Rithika Rajachandran <Rithika.Rajachandran@bbcwindia.com>, "kundesanket@gmail.com" <kundesanket@gmail.com>
Hello!
Greetings from Mumbai, India
We, at BBC Worldwide, are producing a series involving human-interest stories, based on history and mythology, where the storytelling style is modern docu-contemporary. The series is essentially an unprecedented, definitive list of the people, moments and stories that have contributed to India as we know it today. This list covers the most iconic faces, incidents and things in Indian history, across different categories.
We would like to use some material we found online, as visual support for this series. Please do let us know if you hold the rights for the following images and if yes then please let us know how we can proceed on acquiring this visual as well as getting permissions to use the same. We will, of course, provide an acknowledgment/credit/ footage courtesy on the show.
Link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Machiavelli_Principe_Cover_Page.jpg
Hope to hear from you at the earliest. We really appreciate the help.
Thanking you,
Warm Regards,
Tangella Madhavi
Researcher BBC Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.154.7 ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
this? BMK: Grouchy Realist ( talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my removal of a clarification tag on the pronunciation of Nietzsche, and in your edit summary asked whether there should be a second s after the tz. What do you mean? Are you asking about the spelling or the pronunciation? The spelling consists of tz and sch, which represent the sounds /ts/ and /ʃ/. I don't see a second s here; there's only one, in both spelling and pronunciation. If you're referring to the esh (ʃ), that's not a second s. Either way, I don't understand what you mean; please explain. — Eru· tuon 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Please do not get offended but I am currently pursuing my Master and Doctoral Degrees in Theology.
Accordingly, the Catholic and Christian Orthodox faith were united as one until the great schism.
My recent edit was only meet to draw distinction between the Catholic and Christian Orthodox churches.
I pray that one day these two Christian Churches can set aside their differences and be reunited once again.
In the true spirit of humanity we need dialogue first before summarily dismissing ones opinion.
Take the utmost care, Giorgos Trifon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Trifon ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Euphraeus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No secondary sources exist with significant coverage, fails WP:BASIC. Entire article is amateur original research based brief mentions from translations of ancient Greek primary sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
- car chasm (
talk) 06:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphraeus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
- car chasm ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
16 Jun 2005 – 2 Aug 2008 • 3 Aug 2008 – 16 Feb 2009 • 17 Feb 2009 – 10 Jan 2010 • 11 Jan 2010 – 20 Sep 2010 • 6 Oct 2010 – 6 Mar 2011 |
October 2010 == == Your recent edits Please do not add anti-promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to American Academy of Financial Management. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for hate speech, advertising or self promotion. Thank you. GordianG Talk Contribs 17:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for improving the page! It's really nice to see someone adding to a page I made! And very good, thoughtful changes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but the article should include the government links, the top US accreditation agencies of ACBSP and AACSB and the press articulat, and WSJ and FINRAs clear documentation of AAFM Accreditation/exams and degree requirements, and governmental referneces to AAFM.
Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM around the world. Focusing on one article as a negative event seems to be Black Washing. Please help the USA AAFM Board Article be legitimate and contain valid references, citations, and information.
Most of the original information that is included in todays article was written by you and OK with you last year. Not sure why it should be hidden now? Please help get this article right or please ask another editor to help who cares about the content of these financial related educational articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 ( talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Here are several of the original versions of the AAFM article with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=392623589 or this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=383577091 I would like to compromise with you and work with other mediators to refurbish and expand the article while protecting the integrity of it also. It seems that the CFP, CFA and AAFM articles are constantly vandalized. Is there a way to protect them? Do you want me to find some other finance editors and request some help from neutral parties CertifiedFinancialAnalyst ( talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Based on your insights, I researched the history, and before he edit war, I found some articles from your edits. Here are two original versions from your edits. Can we repost the substance of your original articles because they are more informative and authentic with notable references. My objective is to keep a neutral point of view and compromise by using your prior works.
RJC #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=246379035
RJC #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=242810367 CertifiedFinancialAnalyst ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The quotes above state, "I gave reasons for trimming the article back in July 2009" However, these revisions are from 2010 after the article was cleaned up and made neutral. These examples below contain much useful information and links
I propose that we compromise and bring in some neutral parties to bring the article back to where it contains relevant citations and information that parallels similar articles from the same type of organization such as CFP or CFA. CFP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Financial_Planner CFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst
The CFA and CFP articles are much longer with more citations. Example, CFA is over 3400 words with over 30 citations. AAFM used to have a similar amount of citations and information, but now is only about 430 words.
In sum, the AAFM article should be allowed to mirror organization that are exact or similar in nature such as CFP and CFA or PMI Institute.
Can you help improve the article? CertifiedFinancialAnalyst ( talk) 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear RJC, We must remove the illegal mistakes about degrees and such. Degrees in the USA are offered by universities and colleges and NOT organizations such as AAFM, CFA or CFP.
All of your criticism about the AAFM remains. I did not remove any of it. Your criticism continues to be the majority of the articles content. I merely added the new evidence and signed contracts that are published on the AAFM website that debunk the Wall Street Journal mistakes. Let's try to compromise by creating a real article. I have not added any products or services to promote. I merely edited the article to add references and citations from the government, law school, US financial regulatory authority.
Further, without AAFM citations about accredited programs such as the AAFM sponsored graduate law school certification program and the US government approved ACBSP accreditation alliance, the article is deceiving and intentionally biased.
It appears that you are a senior editor of WIKI and know all of the rules about COI and NPOV. Maybe you can ask for some help with this article to improve it with a balanced approach?
History shows that you are the only editor that seems to be concerned about this article, but we need some help as it appears that there has been 3 years of vandalism to this article.
If you have not read the new links, the signed contracts, evidence and alliance citations in the new press release by the AAFM, maybe you should [1] This evidence, seems to contradict the entire WSJ article. Historically, it appears that you were the editor who caught the WSJ with the mistakes in the first place.
Cfpcertified ( talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)CFPCertified Cfpcertified ( talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Modified the Plato section. See what you think. Oxford73 ( talk) 09:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) This is referring to the Natural Law page. Oxford73 ( talk) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at the Plato page and there does not seem to be anything about the dialectic. Also noticed it is a restricted page. Not come across one of those before. Would you like to write something about the dialectic in Plato? Oxford73 ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you about the contested nature of it. Oxford73 ( talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Added a very brief summary re dialectic. Oxford73 ( talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes thanks for adding that, I was going to go back and inform the person that the "now you can't see how naughty I've been" approach is akin to cats who have their hind legs and tail sticking out from behind the sofa etc. and assume that they can't be seen.
I am just manually reverting the edits that this person made to Mongol Empire, I do not think they are a native, Greekish I would say by the user name and the articles edited, in this article they have changed eventually for basically concerning the reach of the empire, that is totally not the same meaning or intention.
If you are an admin, please keep an eye on this person, which I suppose you're doing, I just totally reverted the Alexander the Great article where the person removed all of the adverbs, I checked one source and the adverb was used in the source, it appears to be a well constructed and researched article so for someone to just stomp in and remove nuanced material is a bit off, really. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: well last night the user blanked their page again and I saw it on my watchlist within a couple of minutes, so I decided to put the heebie-jeebies up them and it seems to have had some effect - Iritakamas. A little comic relief! CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that you should add the picture from the Oxford Edition of On The Genealogy of Morality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jar2187 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I have started many disambituations pages similar to this one, only that some have hundreds of links and many see alsos. However, if you think it would be better off as a portal, we could start a discussion on Portal talk:Science. I created the page because there was a science of morality article, so I figured why not have a morality of science page. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you changed the dates from BCE to BC on Aegean civilizations. The wikipedia guideline on this ( WP:ERA) suggests leaving dates as they are. RJC 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi RJC, Just wanted to say thank you for improving my edit insertion for the QS ranking on this article. I've edited the last change you made as I felt the need to state in articles "what is" as opposed to "what isn't" in referenced citations. I hope we can agree on this to keep the neutrality of the article. Auditguy ( talk) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd be able to assist. I reverted twice an edit by editor, Nirjhara, in the article Indo-Aryan migration because I felt it was worded POV. I left clear comments on why it was removed, but the editor has put it back in twice without comment. When I looked into the editor's history I found they had added it to Proto-Indo-Europeans (and other articles), but it was removed by you and Dougweller in both cases for being fringe theory. Although I follow this article, I'm not knowledge on the topic and was hoping you may be able to step in? Thanks. BashBrannigan ( talk) 07:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As one of the main contributors to the Machiavelli article can you have a look on the talk page and consider the question of secondary sources. I see the other editors point, but am thinking it might lead to complaints that the article has poor sourcing and is too much of a pure summary?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What part of the Act as passed that I posted is inaccurate? I tried to be very careful and find the exact wording of the act as it was originally passed. Also, I tend to disagree that the whole act was "too much." The purpose of this act and its scope is hard for people nowadays to understand without reading the original wording. The part that is left today in the US Code is such a small percentage of the original act that one does not get whole flavor of the really sweeping nature of this bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbow ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion. I know Greek does sometimes get strangely Anglicised (I have included mention of such a pronunciation in the Nous article), but I do not think I ever heard anyone say the "i" in Nicomachus or Nicomachean anything like the way the brand "Nike" is pronounced, only the way people say "Nicholas", i.e. something like the original Greek. But the first line of Nicomachean Ethics has a source for such a diphthong pronunciation. (I wonder if the source really mentions the Ethics or just gives a general remark that Greek I often becomes "ai".) Is this something people say in American academia?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you've removed my note form the article Protagoras (dialogue). Please forgive me for my wrong grammar in the edits summary, the correct version of which shoud be "refining my note related to the Nietzsche's future criticism." But let me to defend myself a little against supposed original research. Nietzsche wasn't my source. The whole content of the note was supported by the dialogue and was designed to remind only the importance of the passage about "the impossibility of doing good willingly (or voluntarily) and necessity of knowledge for not being bad." This passage was as a whole omitted in the article. But I must admit, that Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil didn't quote hís source and wrote only about Socrates and Plato (§190). The themes are however equal... Chomsky ( talk) 08:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
But I understand, that to have an independent source supporting the connection between Nietzsche and Plato would be the best... Chomsky ( talk) 09:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added the omitted text into the article, already without any refference to Nietzsche. Chomsky ( talk) 14:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I must confess that a book, which I used from the Barron's Educational Series, Inc., don't contain any connection between Beyond Good and Evil and an idea of superman. I only still tend to original research myself... Chomsky ( talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear RJC, please give your thoughts on a proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#.22Genetic_Anthropology.22_section_needs_updating gd tms. Nirjhara ( talk) 04:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
Can you explain why you removed Eliza Dushku and instead inserted Gjeke Marinaj ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=443970290
Eliza Dushku should definately be in the infobox, Gjeke Marinaj is a translator, not known by nobody. 37.17.252.233 ( talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, you're absolutely right about Plato's Fifth Letter. I got my wording backwards with that edit. Cheers, CCS81 ( talk) 02:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
RJC, I see you take issue with me correcting a rule breach just because it was a few years ago. It's actually not quite as simple as this. Ever since User:Wetman broke the rules in Dec 2007 by taking it upon himself to change the whole article Poseidon from BC to BCE, multiple editors have noticed the problem and tried to correct it, but he keeps changing it back. He was even doing this in the article as recently as last year here, where he didn't even write an edit summary even though he wasn't reverting vandalism. Is that recent enough for you? The problem has only lasted this long because the editor who originally broke the rule has hijacked the article, treating it as his own and preventing other people from correcting it. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 00:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC))
A reminder -- Twinkle reverts are only to be used to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to revert you, but please see [1]. There has been a long saga with those sock puppet accounts. History2007 ( talk) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, You restored a map I had deleted from [ [2]]. I can accept user created maps, but this one is just sloppy. For example it shows little or no Haplogroup R1a in Iran which is factually wrong. Other areas of high concentration such as Siberia have also been omitted. The article already has a map based on Underhill et al. (2009), so there is no need to retain this erroneous one. Best, JS ( talk) 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes on the Leviathan (book) page in response to my comments. I did a little copy editing to your entry, which I hope you find satisfactory. Also, given the banner on the page calling for more references, I might suggest adding more citations to the entry. Socialtheorynow ( talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It may not be quite your thing, but Roberto Mangabeira Unger has some of the same issues (IMO) as Hobbes, so to speak. Perhaps you would take a look? William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophist (dialogue), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As noted here, the following has been posted online and a rough facsimile was emailed to the functionaries email list earlier this week, and then forwarded to the Foundation legal department. Frank | talk 04:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please don't shoot me; I'm the messenger. In case you've not seen it already at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management, I'm here to let you know about this page; it seems a thoroughly frivolous complaint, but it still might be worth your attention, since you are named in the complaint. Nyttend ( talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, RJC!
I saw you reverted some edits I made on this article, and was wondering whether you would discuss them with me. As to the question about "substance" and "origin": Simplicius informs us ( Dieltz/Kranz II.9) that Anaximander thought the beginning (ἀρχή) and element (στοιχεῖον) of all things (τῶν ὄντων) was the apeiron. In Pseudo-Plutarch we find that Anaximander's apeiron was "the whole cause of the whole creation and ruin [of the world]". (D/K II.10; Cf. D/K II.14)
To determine what he meant by this is hard enough as it is, so I used the interpretation found in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Plato by Cohen, Curd and Reeve. This work calls the apeiron the "material stuff out of which everything in the universe comes", (p. 10) which I worded as "substance", and "origin of the universe" ("substratum", I think, being hard to understand for the average reader). Furthermore the Greek term ἀρχή can be translated as "origin", although "first principle" may look better in this case.
I'd really like your input on this! Regards, Bahnheckl ( talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If you have a reference, why didn't you reintroduce the text with the citation instead of reverting my edit? I had know way of knowing if the text was true, so I certainly could not add a citation myself (as I did with the missing citation for the Huntington quote). It has been sitting there for five years awaiting a citation, so cutting it out was appropriate when I did it. Eodcarl ( talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
In regard to my recent excision of some material for Locke's Second Treatise, and your reversion of it, I've raised some questions on the article's talk page. I think the existing paragraph is sufficiently muddled logically that the article would be better without it. But, fair enough, this needs to be argued for, so I've outlined the argument there. No interest in starting an edit war for no good reason. 2601:7:2340:10:9DF4:B6F5:6844:65E2 ( talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
sweta sriram <swetasriram@gmail.com>, Vrishali Kemkar <vrishali.kemkar@bbcwindia.com>, Rithika Rajachandran <Rithika.Rajachandran@bbcwindia.com>, "kundesanket@gmail.com" <kundesanket@gmail.com>
Hello!
Greetings from Mumbai, India
We, at BBC Worldwide, are producing a series involving human-interest stories, based on history and mythology, where the storytelling style is modern docu-contemporary. The series is essentially an unprecedented, definitive list of the people, moments and stories that have contributed to India as we know it today. This list covers the most iconic faces, incidents and things in Indian history, across different categories.
We would like to use some material we found online, as visual support for this series. Please do let us know if you hold the rights for the following images and if yes then please let us know how we can proceed on acquiring this visual as well as getting permissions to use the same. We will, of course, provide an acknowledgment/credit/ footage courtesy on the show.
Link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Machiavelli_Principe_Cover_Page.jpg
Hope to hear from you at the earliest. We really appreciate the help.
Thanking you,
Warm Regards,
Tangella Madhavi
Researcher BBC Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.154.7 ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
this? BMK: Grouchy Realist ( talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my removal of a clarification tag on the pronunciation of Nietzsche, and in your edit summary asked whether there should be a second s after the tz. What do you mean? Are you asking about the spelling or the pronunciation? The spelling consists of tz and sch, which represent the sounds /ts/ and /ʃ/. I don't see a second s here; there's only one, in both spelling and pronunciation. If you're referring to the esh (ʃ), that's not a second s. Either way, I don't understand what you mean; please explain. — Eru· tuon 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Please do not get offended but I am currently pursuing my Master and Doctoral Degrees in Theology.
Accordingly, the Catholic and Christian Orthodox faith were united as one until the great schism.
My recent edit was only meet to draw distinction between the Catholic and Christian Orthodox churches.
I pray that one day these two Christian Churches can set aside their differences and be reunited once again.
In the true spirit of humanity we need dialogue first before summarily dismissing ones opinion.
Take the utmost care, Giorgos Trifon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Trifon ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Euphraeus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No secondary sources exist with significant coverage, fails WP:BASIC. Entire article is amateur original research based brief mentions from translations of ancient Greek primary sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
- car chasm (
talk) 06:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphraeus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
- car chasm ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)