John the Baptist was a Hamster

It is reliably reported that John the Baptist was a hamster. Really.

Preached in the wilderness Matthew 3:1

John the Baptist had the same tailor as Elijah. (Compare Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6 with NIV: 2 Kings 1:8, HE: 2 Kings 1:8, KJV: 2 Kings 1:8)

Preached repentance to avoid the day of judgement Mark 1:4 "kingdom of heaven" Matthew 3:2 and punishment of the wicked Matthew 3:10 Luke 3:7–9

Positive ethical guidance Luke 3:10–14

It was claimed he fulfilled prophecy of Isaiah Matthew 3:3 Luke 3:4 John 1:23

Faint praise for Moses and Law John 1:17

Dismissive of all pride in race or ancestry Matthew 3:9 Luke 3:8

nb(HE): 1:1–6 nolang: Genesis 1:1–6 nolang: Mark 1:1–6 nolang: Tobit 1:1–6 BB(polyglot - can get SEP): Genesis 1:1–6 HE: Genesis 1:1–6 vulgate: Genesis 1:1–6 Douay-Rheims: Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT: Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT(1550): Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT: Mark 1:1–6 NAB: Tobit 1:1–6

Wikimedia user edit counter

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

On Ten Commandments you have been making edits to the effect that Sinai and Horeb are different mountains. This is in complete contrast with generally accepted interpretations, according to which these are two names for the same mountain. I think it would be better if you'd discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments first. There may be a problem with emphasis that we need to address. For one thing: which sources can you provide that Horeb and Sinai are different mountains? JFW |  T@lk 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please note I did not revert your links, in the first place, but you ask which policy controls links? It took me a long time to find this out when I needed to know.

To lift from "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)"

"Do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"

"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article... ... Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

"However, duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate ... ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection."

The link is, and should be, in the introductory para, and when the main text gets round to it in line 65 - the others are optional. I note you have reinstated 3 links, all at least 10 lines apart, whereas you originally added 6 - IMHO the balance is now about right

Arjayay ( talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, very useful. Let's just hope that Van helsing agrees with you. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I've replied on my talk page. Yours, Lord Foppington ( talk) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Your bot 12:41, 17 May 2008 CmdrObot (Talk | contribs) m (3,819 bytes) (sp: mens→men's) (undo) changed "mens divinor" in the Alexander Anderson (poet) article to "men's divinor". But the original was correct. It's Latin. I think it means "a mind more divine", or something like that, although the phrase doesn't appear to be in common use now. Perhaps it should have been italicised. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sam, thanks for that. I try to watch out for Latin phrases like that (most recently I saw one in Catullus 68 for example), but I guess sometimes one must slip through the net. I've now added the Anderson one to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot ( talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the rewrite, it needed it badly. -- Karuna8 ( talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It should be established in the introduction which god the article is talking about, without having to click on wikilinks. Ben ( talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

replied on article talk page SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [1].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [2].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. - LisaLiel ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know having seen you moved Tomkins to Tompkins Plc, this is against Wiki naming policy [ [3]], edit history for article shows it was moved from Tompkins plc to Tompkins previously, and FTSE 250 Index list also every other firm has no plc in title. So Ive reverted it ( I had thought that companies would be designated by Plc , Ltd etc till I found otherwise looking at edit histories / discussions) - BulldozerD11 ( talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes after editing it and leaving message for you, I realised its not as simple, as you say could get a tangle (solved one and then get 2 problems) [[Tompkins plc|Tompkins would fix the list but not the article, so apologies for barging in, I'll let you resolve it then as Wikiepedia has this great habit of dragging you off at a tangent when you see something and try to fix it quickly. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope you will find such situations less surprising in the future. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Samuel, I've seen sources for both Lisa's and Jerry's passages. Can't we just tag everything so we can fix the page? This tit for tat isn't going to work very well. Because, it's hard to cite something that's invisible.

Also, should we put this into a NPOV category? Tim ( talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mishpatim, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Meld shal 42? 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, I was just notifying you. I didn't write the message, it is written in {{ uw-vandalism1}}. Cheers, -- Meld shal 42? 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't say the edit was vandalism, I said it was unconstructive. Please calm down. I apologize for making a rude comment. But what was the intention of the edit? -- Meld shal 42? 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I am so sorry! i had a bug with my computer that messed this up. i apologize, and thanks for my tolerating that. Man, that was a huge mistake! Thanks, -- Meld shal 42? 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Still missing essentials to move out of "stub" category are:

• infobox
• picture/cover (original or 1st edition is preferable) for either or both versions presented
• external sources or references to the book
• lists of contributors might not be helpful, unless they're wikilinked, but it's still ok to put them in.

Just a few thoughts... SkierRMH ( talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. SmackBot just added a reference section and reflist to Bianco (surname). It's harmless, but in this case also pointless. Is there a reason? SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the inofbox was broken Rich Farmbrough, 22:21 30 August 2008 (GMT).

It wasn't I who introduced that sentence. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"mainstream" is a word to avoid because it indicates that the Bates method might somehow be scientific, which all but the most tried-and-true believers acknowledge it is not. The scientific evidence comes from various Opthamology Texts. For example. "Scientific evidence" is a catch-all term for the facts elucidated by a huge discipline. It's not simply a viewpoint that this is what causes vision loss: evidence-based medicine requires a connection to data and scientific evidence. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The evidence is reported in standard opthamology texts. The persistence of the various forms of ametropia is attributed in all the texts referenced to anatomical, not physiological, conditions. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I understand what evidence means perfectly well. As far as Wikipedia goes, we need reliable, verifiable sources that are not unduly synthesized by fringe proponents with obvious agendas. Unfortunately, this is not yet to be had at this page. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry I was tired and distracted by non-Wikipedia things so I got confused about the edit history. I still don't understand why maize has been unilaterally declared to be the primary meaning of corn. It depends entirely on who you are, where you are and what you are hearing or reading. As someone pointed out, a lot of people in this world read the bible, for example, and none of the many occurrences of the word corn in the bible refer to maize. Anyway, I give up. Wikipedia is clearly going to be a US-centric encyclopaedia. Rachel Pearce ( talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, that didn't last long, did it? I suppose I'm addicted. At least to trivial copy editing. I have never been good at adding content anyway, so maybe I should just stay away from that. Thanks for the encouragement anyway! Rachel Pearce ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

[4] I suggest you read the past discussions on these problems, and make sure you understand WP:V and WP:NOT. We're writing an encyclopedia article here. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That's OK, Ronz, I quite understand. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi SamuelTheGhost. I'm glad to see you contributing regularly at Bates method. I placed a tag on the "Ophthalmological Research" section as a way of effectively stating what you attempted to point out here. At this point I don't really think this is worth taking up further but at least the reader will be cautioned. PSWG1920 ( talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi SamuelTheGhost. I have copied most of Margaret Darst Corbett, the current version of which you created entirely, into the "After Bates" section of Bates method. You could be a big help with that section as you seem to have Pollack's book. I am hoping that more of its text will turn up online somewhere. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm very happy with the merge if it stays like that. Yes, I have Pollack's book. I've carried out some test searches of its text in google and they deliver results for chapter 3 only, so I'm fairly sure there's no more of it on the net. If you ask me direct questions about its content, I'll answer them. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I actually e-mailed Quackwatch to suggest putting more chapters up, but Stephen Barrett responded that he doesn't have the book. Google books has a searchable "snippet view" version, and I linked to that for the references to Corbett. I think Pollack will be a major source for the expansion of the "After Bates" section, so your help will be appreciated. We will probably need a different citation for each reference due to the limitations of the Google Books version (since the book is rare, it seems only fair to confirm things for the reader when we can.) Perhaps we could add a subsection about Harold Peppard? Also, the lead of that section needs to be improved. PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm amused by your reference to Pollack as "rare". I bought my copy on abebooks ( http://www.abebooks.com/ or http://www.abebooks.co.uk/) in May this year for ten dollars; I observe that there are now just two copies there for sale, both at $100 or more, so I had a bargain. As for the article, I'm getting a little worried about the pruning of the Corbett section. In particular, the source for her own opinion should be directly one of her own three books. Have you got any of them? If not, I've got two of them, and could sort out some pithy phrase to use. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No, unfortunately I don't have any of Corbett's books. Experience leads me to believe that a quote as long as the one that was there will be frowned upon, especially if there's no secondary source for it. Of course we can reference Corbett's books, but we should also use as many "independent" sources as we can. Elwin Marg actually quotes her at some length, so that may help. And somewhere there must be news articles about the case. PSWG1920 ( talk) 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The referencing for the Corbett section still seems a bit unclear. For example, is Pollack the source for the entire discussion of the legal case? And what is the source for Corbett consulting Bates about her husband's eyesight? I'm thinking about nominating Bates method for a Good article in the near future, but the "After Bates" section still needs some work. PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• is Pollack the source for the entire discussion of the legal case? - unfortunately, yes.
• And what is the source for Corbett consulting Bates about her husband's eyesight? - Pollack again, I'm afraid. He gives it as something she said in court during the trial.

Corbett avoids saying anything about her own history in her books, and the publisher's blurb only tells us that she was a pupil of Bates, ran her "School of Eye Education", and that her students included "Aldous Huxley, John Dos Passos and Harold Heffernan". There may be some better source for her, but I haven't found it. Of course a search of the press around the time of the trial would certainly yield stuff, but I guess it would be hard work finding it. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

A search of the Google news archives doesn't seem to yield anything about the case, though there are a few mentions of Corbett. I really wish more of Pollack's book would show up online somewhere! For now, perhaps you could make the referencing more clear in the section? PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that was helpful. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed an RfC regarding the use of the word "fair" in NPOV which I thought you might be interested in, in light of past discussions. PSWG1920 ( talk) 21:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. I need to ponder the question for a little time before deciding whether and how to comment. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

SamuelTheGhost, I understand that things are heated at this guideline and the related noticeboard. I am asking all editors to do what they can to de-escalate the dispute at this point. In your own case, I would ask that (1) you avoid using emotionally-charged language such as "ignorant"; (2) that you avoid edit-warring; and (3) that you ensure that you are engaging at talkpages. And as an extra credit #4, it would be nice if you created a userpage.  :) Thanks, -- El on ka 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I assume that you're watching this page, so I'll reply here.

1. In general, I agree that words like "ignorant" are to be avoided. In this context, however, I was referring to his implicit characterization of me personally. He knows nothing about me, so "ignorant" is precisely the right word.
2. Indeed. I don't think I have in this case, and I don't intend to.
3. I have already made some remarks in the relevant talkpages. If I make any further contribution on this topic, it will be there.
4. I'll create a userpage if and when I find the need. That time has not yet come.

SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I did not see him specifically referring to you. Is there some other interchange of which I am unaware? -- El on ka 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No, there has been no other interchange. At the time I wrote that message, his words were "The ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects" [5] which clearly includes me. I note that he has refactored at your behest, and thank you for that. I don't think I have acted wrongly, but I'm very willing to let the matter drop and move on. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I never said it was easy to be civil when calling a spade a spade. I think he did a fairly good job when he changed his comments though.

The problem with even attempting it in edit summaries is that you can't change them later. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The article talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article, not to gossip about other editors. If you are concerned with allegations of conflicts of interest, please do so in a proper forum. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL again! This is making my day! SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

As long as you can learn to follow Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Since you said that you are intrigued by my username, I'll explain it. My selection of a username which refers to Bates' book was partly tongue-in-cheek, since I have seen "Bates cultists" derided by skeptics, mainly on sci.med.vision. But around the time I signed up here, I had also been influenced by some individuals in online communities who could perhaps aptly be termed "Bates cultists", though I'm not convinced that they're wrong. These people believe that Bates' unaltered writings remain the best source of information about vision improvement, and that he did not exaggerate his success in the clinic, but that subsequent Bates teachers failed to get his caliber of results because they diluted the method. Someone characterized the 1943 revision of the book as being "corrupted". I'm now somewhat less inclined toward this viewpoint than I was when I started editing the article, and really I have become more doubtful about the Bates method in general. I've experienced mild temporary improvements which could be explained as ciliary spasm, and more dramatic temporary improvements which may result from a natural contact lens caused by moisture. Which is why I created the "Claimed success" section. PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Samuel, I enjoyed reading your comment on my talk page. I haven't responded because I believe it's DGG's turn. :) I think the issue of elitism, and the related questions and issues of how sources and articles should be evaluated is at the heart of many of the disputes here. There is a divide, as you've recognized, between the academic, scientific, "fringe", and mass audiences. I think it's interesting to see how it plays out on Wikipedia, and the discussion was my effort to dialog with someone who seems to use an ends justify the means approach to advance the scientific academic sphere without recognizing the contributions and value of other spheres of knowledge. Take care and Happy Thanksgiving, even if you're not one of us American turkeys. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it would be best that your remove or heavily refactor your accusations against unnamed editors here: [6]. Again, article talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article, not to attack or harass other editors. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)-- Ronz ( talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Ronz, nice to hear from you. I'm afraid I see no reason to remove what I said. As for "heavily refactoring", that would merely be to describe a spade as a horticultural implement, so I don't see the point.

If you feel you have been harassed, I apologise. That was not my intention. However, given the long history of discussions on this topic, and my desire (which I presume you share) to bring ZapperNapper up to speed on it all, it seems legitimate to summarise some of the previous discussion on particular issues.

I take it that "wikilawyering driven by anti-Bates POV pushing" is the phrase you don't like. I have to say that I see "I think it would be best to use the sources we have to discuss how absurd the Bates method truly is" as an explicit desire to push an anti-Bates POV. As for wikilawyering, I think that fundamental policies (NPOV, RS, V) both allow and require, in this case, the use of modern pro-Bates source, properly contextualised, as evidence of what the Bates method now means. Thus it is fair to characterise the many references which have been made to other, less fundamental, policies in order to prevent that use as "wikilawyering". SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

If you're unable to follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, then you might just want to stop editing Wikipedia altogether. Otherwise, you'll likely find yourself extremely frustrated with the problems that you cause and the actions taken by others to resolve them. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting essay applicable to the above discussion: User:Abd/Majority_POV-pushing. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you presented a strong case for making corn into an article and separating out corn (disambiguation), could you perhaps weigh in on the talk page. It's not a huge issue, but an editor wants to reframe the language to emphasize the primacy of the maize meaning. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know whether it was the sobering effect of being blocked or the numbing effect of my verbiage, but things seem to have calmed down. Let's hope it lasts. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

the fact that these were Huxley's own words affirms my beleif it's better to be more general - it likely was punctate keratitis, but b/c it's not like we can just go get his medical records, keratitis can suffuce - besides that level of specifity is kind of unneeded. BTW, cute Robo hamster. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel _Alexandria 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you a bearer of bad news come to let us know we've been forsaken? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I was doing a history merge to fix a very old cut and paste move from corn to maize. The first few revisions of corn (disambiguation) (originally at the title corn) were moved by cut and paste to maize back in June 2002. Graham 87 12:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

In response to your comment at User:Citation bot/bugs, the place to discuss the issue is Template talk:Cite book. Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I've done that. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi SamuelTheGhost. Thank you very much for posting the information about the Woods report in Behavioral optometry and on the Bates method talk page. I am increasingly thinking that the "Ophthalmological Research" section as it is should be deleted from the Bates method article, for reasons which you have raised before. I've thought for a while that the section was misleading and a distraction, but only recently have I sorted out exactly what the problem is. There's no indication from the AAO report (which the section is mainly a summary of) that any of the reviewed studies tested any method which has actually been claimed to improve eyesight. Now if we could find records of a formal controlled study in which a Bates teacher participated, working with subjects while a third-party measured results, that would merit a lot of space in the article. But I'm not sure that has ever happened. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed. If I discover such a study, I will certainly let you and Wikipedia know. But I suspect that there isn't one. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you then support deleting the Ophthalmological Research section from the article? PSWG1920 ( talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I observe that it's already gone. On balance, I think that that's an improvement. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I merged and condensed it into "Modern Variants". I don't know if that will stick, though. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the support regarding the Bates method template, and for your contributions to the article in the past year. PSWG1920 ( talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Memo to SamuelTheGhost: I have noted the above harassment in the MedCab case. Even if it fails to resolve anything, its archive will at least be useful in documenting Ronz's misconduct should that be necessary. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Where's the misconduct? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As I've indicated before, Ronz, I'm done trying to explain this to you. However I still hold out hope that someone else will succeed. Otherwise I suppose administrative action may give you some insight. PSWG1920 ( talk) 23:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments such as those at 19:18 and 23:16 above only escalates the problems without addressing anything related to making the article better. When you're willing to focus on improving the article again, I'm waiting. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

All right. The first step toward improving the article is to have tags which are as informative as possible regarding what the perceived problems are. The current warning banner is simply not. Eleven days ago, in Talk:Bates_method#Primary_sources_tag, I provided text for custom templates which you could use to specify the concerns that you have previously expressed regarding neutrality and original research. PSWG1920 ( talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave the tags issue on one side for a little while, and discuss things in broader terms so as to get a better perspective on the discussion. I'd been mulling over the idea of introducing a new section on the BM talk page called "What NPOV means for this article" or some such. I'll probably do so when I get time and have thought about it bit more. But I'd be delighted if Ronz got in and wrote it first. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 19:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Great idea, SamuelTheGhost. For the first time in at least a week I'm feeling optimistic about this situation. Of course, it would also be helpful if Ronz were to replace the warning banner with informative, section-specific, issue-specific tags such as the ones I provided text for. PSWG1920 ( talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Of course, a problem with figuring out what NPOV means in application to any one article is that parts of the policy, especially UNDUE which gets brought up a lot here, could be more clear regarding different situations. The reason it is not, I have realized, is that clear policies are difficult to gain anything close to community consensus for. Nonetheless, I was thinking it might be a good idea to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (and maybe then an RfC) asking whether in the case of an article about a theory which is generally considered pseudoscience, does WP:Undue weight mean that the majority of the article should be specifically about criticisms, as Ronz has stated. PSWG1920 ( talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've started the discussion. PSWG1920 ( talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hell, you can mediate this one with your little pinky ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) This has been a shameless plug brought to you by Mediation Cabal. reply

Hi, SamuelTheGhost. Our policy is that biographical article titles reflect the best known name of the subject. Thus, we have an article on Edward Elgar, but not one on Edward William Elgar (except as a redirect page), because nobody except government record-keepers referred to him that way. And it's George W. Bush, not George Walker Bush. Conversely, we have an article on John Charles Thomas because he was known professionally and generally by all three names, not just as "John Thomas". Clutsam is known as "George Clutsam", never as "George Howard Clutsam". There's no issue of disambiguation with George Clutsam, but if there were, the better approach would be to have "George Clutsam (composer)" and "George Clutsam (astrologer/taxidermist/whatever)", because using the middle names would assume people knew that the one with the middle name Howard was a composer and the one with Murgatroyd was a taxidermist, which would not, I suggest, be a useful assumption to make. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It's all here in glorious detail. Enjoy. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I responded to your comment on the discussion page re the location of Midian Rktect ( talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

ghost- i invite you to join the discussion about an addition I made to Euclid. Check out my page first, which gives a summary, and then the talk page. NittyG ( talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please see the discussion at the Patience talk page about your recent edit. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [7]

Please remove your edit as a sign of good faith. If you take a closer look, I was the one who qualified the earlier statements. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

A straightforward reading of what you wrote clearly implied that you associated yourself with the COI accusation. And this edit confirms it. If you apologise to Junsun, I will apologise to you. And if not, not. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I suggest you take it up at WP:WQA. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

No, Ronz, I have a sense of proportion, which is something you need. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed your personal attack. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do so, but I'm afraid I have no advice to offer at the moment. I removed your comment from the talk page because I thought it unnecessary and unhelpful since the edit warring had already ceased. Apologies. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to revert this to the pre-Rktect version [8], which means undoing a few edits of yours, but this seems to be the easiest way to clear it of the OR of this now blocked editor. What do you think? dougweller ( talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

To answer on Gb's behalf: No, nothing about a medieval poet was actually at that place. It was about a living guy and started: "When younger, John Kay was a punk singer who also performed his poetry in pubs in the North....So the one you have in mind still needs to be written about...-- Tikiwont ( talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the information. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Replied at User talk:81.39.1.110. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This edit was inappropriate, for multiple reasons. First off, the page is undeniably listed at a project page for discussion about whether it should be deleted or not, so it needs a tag indicating that. Removing the tag doesn't stop the listing. Second, you labeled the edit "rvv", which, in case you don't know, means a revert due to vandalism. The edit was not in any, way, shape or form vandalism. See the vandalism policy , and specifically what isn't considered vandalism if you are unclear on our rules. Labeling edits you do not like as vandalism is extremely uncivil.

I don't know how long you've been around Wikipedia, but just from the sheer number of posts on your talk page you obviously aren't a complete newbie. Maybe you've just never dealt with deletion votes or vandalism, I don't know. But, please, do not do that kind of thing again. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion continues here SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the Antonia Orfield link. I have placed it in the External Links, and I think it should probably remain there, because it is basically a primary source and would be difficult to discuss from a NPOV. It is quite possible that someone will find a reason to remove it, but we'll deal with that when it happens.

It appears that you are very much wanted at Talk:Bates method, to answer questions regarding the (now rather infamous) Woods report, though I think you've already answered them rather thoroughly. PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you provide page numbers for the Pollack references regarding Margaret Corbett? The snippet view version seems to be gone from Google Books. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. You didn't have to be quite so precise (i.e. just noting that it was pages 7-8 would have been sufficient), not that that's a problem. As you may have noticed I found a source discussing Mansfield's book. PSWG1920 ( talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I recently learned that anything published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 had its copyright expire after 28 years if it wasn't renewed. [9] This likely explains why Quackwatch can reproduce an entire chapter of Philip Pollack's 1956 book. [10] Now, if we had the entire book online, such as at a place like Scribd.com, its accessibility would no longer be a problem, and at least some of the Gardner references could be replaced. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sure you're right, but surely a better place to put it, considering who we are, might be wikisource? More troublingly, I detect in what you say a hint for action on my part. Whether I attempt to take that hint depends on several factors: I'll need to review the potentialities of the hardware and software available to me, and, most importantly, my willingness to undertake hard work, which is slight. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually detest wikisource, for multiple reasons. First, it is difficult there to reproduce something in its original form, and secondly, anything hosted there can be changed by anyone at any time. Also, if the person submitting something couldn't prove for sure that it was public domain it would likely be deleted. Now, Google books has a snippet view version of Pollack's book, and I assume that technically, only a flip of the switch would be needed to make it Full view. I just contacted them (after trying a few days ago but somehow missing the contact form) asking if its copyright status could be checked and the book made fully available if indeed the copyright has expired. If I had been able to contact them when I first tried I wouldn't have hinted to you like this. PSWG1920 ( talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That's interesting what you say about wikisource. Of course its openness to alteration cuts both ways - I recently made a few corrections to a document there, but of course I could have been introducing errors. It does mean that any use of it as WP:RS is vulnerable, but the same is true of lots of on-line references. Google books will be perfect if you can get them to co-operate. Best of luck. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think Google Books is going to do anything, however, I got the book listed here, which may or may not help it get online some other way. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you able to at least scan the book? By my understanding that would be considerably less work than digitizing, since scanning only creates an image and doesn't require that text be recognized (and someone else with more resources and time could presumably then digitize a scanned version, to make it searchable.) PSWG1920 ( talk) 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

How about I just send the book to you through the post, and you do whatever you want and send it back in due course? That would only cost me the postage, which I'd find very much less onerous than any alternative. We could still respect each other's anonymity in every other respect. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 09:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I would not really be comfortable with that arrangement, for multiple reasons. I wonder if there is some way to prove conclusively that it is out of copyright, since that seems to be what it would take for Google Books (which already has it digitized) to make it Full view. PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there sir, you seem like a very nice fellow. Would you mind supporting my request for adminiship? Thank you very much. Wetman88 ( talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I originally removed this, but then figured it isn't actionable since I closed it, so yeah. —  neuro ^{(talk) (review)} 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks good. Here's more:

• http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/2573358?n=14643&s=4
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Ubr35UeE-UQC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=%22Richardson's+Show%22+%22John+Richardson+%22&source=bl&ots=egPeK32hlA&sig=UUAa0JdIldwxVmmCd0tcV-b38ZY&hl=en&ei=tcvXSZTbJ5PrlQfL5oXiDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support. I've put the above two sources into the article so that everyone can see them. The Cambridge Guide article by Martin Banham is similar in the two books he edited, but somewhat shorter in the paperback version. On the other hand that has the advantage of showing up in Google Books, so it's fair enough to cite both of them. The Harvard paper looks like it's a mine of further information which it will take me a little time to digest. Pardon the mixed metaphor, digesting a mine sounds uncomfortable. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See the link on the talk page for the link up to the discussion on Project Disambiguation talk.

But if you intend to ignore that, at least realize the page is far easier to rectify than line by line wading. Proofreader77 ( talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The discussion found by the link referred to appears to be WP:CB. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added you to the Seeyou case as an involved party, as per my talkpage. If you wish, feel free to make a statement, but bear in mind Seeyou hasn't commented yet and the case may be delayed to wait for it. Apologies for not adding you sooner. - Jeremy ^{( v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you like to contribute to a new discussion on the talk page of the above about turning that article into a redirect as it appears to be a content fork? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. For the time being I prefer to hang back and see what other people say. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I understand. Dougweller ( talk) 12:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

See File:Google hits Nakba.JPG. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The difference could be related to how we have Google preferences configured. I have it returning 100 searches per page, safe searching off, all languages. I have no idea whether that would make a difference. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

When I type Nakba into Google UK, I get 1,960,000. Curiouser and curiouser. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 11:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have a few concerns about the prose, which you may find at Talk:The Botanic Garden/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that "X-language surnames" is not commonly found in any literature about the subject of surnames. Why, then, did our encyclopedia move to this system? Please see Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames, as well as Category talk:Korean-language surnames for an answer to why so many of the new categories only have one or two names in them (while Category:Chinese-language surnames was swiftly repopulated by bot). Badagnani ( talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Thanks for the information. I'd seen much of this debate, but not those particular pages. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you understand now that, contrary to your wish, "those who created this situation" are not ever inclined to be the ones to "put things right"; they simply insist on damaging a system, then leave others to clean up--even after being asked 20, 50, or 100 times to assist in the reconstruction of a categorization system they insisted on breaking. They simply move on to other things. If you are able to convince that editor to use his bot powers to repopulate those categories I will be very pleasantly surprised. Badagnani ( talk) 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast". SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a little note, X-language surnames could be very useful for making (or abdicating) decisions on sort-order. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC). reply

You should be aware you have been named (although not "involved") at [11],by William Allen Simpson.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC). reply

Thanks. It seems to have gone away for the moment, but I certainly want to speak up when it comes back. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually have no knowledge of this material at all, and don't really care about the category structure. I just happened to have noticed that among Harrison, Hanks, and a number of other books cited, only the 1969 version was locally available to me. In my mind, where the name was originally found and is still in use and what language it originally came are two different facets of a name (like, for example, Category:Films by topic and Category:Films by type) and should be covered separately, but I honestly don't care if we don't have categories. But, being where we are, if I'm reading your concern correctly

• For Malone [again, should be at Talk:Malone]: I'll rewrite it to Irish for Harrison, you can add the rest.
• For MacNicol [again, should be at Talk:MacNicol]: I'm guessing that Harrison's Celtic and "Gaelic" is in fact Scottish Gaelic, so that would make Harrison, HH, and Cottle with the same idea. If you agree, I can change that as well. That's a flaw of using any source without really understanding what's going on.
• Aaron, Aaron, Aarons and Aaronson [which should be copied in part to Talk:Aaron (surname)]: the name is a Jewish name (i.e. used by Jewish people) but only Harrison says the origin is from the original Hebrew. HH agrees on the Jewish part but sees a much more varied history, Reany has no real mention other than "medieval England" with it being used by Jewish people, and Cottle omits it. I think Category:Jewish surnames would thus be appropriate (HH can be cited for that), but you seem to be suggesting that it being from a Hebrew language is incorrect. Why not include Harrison claiming its Hebrew and whatever HH does? Are you saying everything Harrison did is wrong? That it's not a reliable source at all? If so, then all uses should be removed. If not, until we find some consensus as to its origins (which I doubt we'll find), WP:UNDUE would say to include both theories.

What language would the name come from otherwise? A google search isn't indicative to me; there is a source calling it Hebrew in origin and I suspect there will other examples as well. The fact that Harrison's definition of the United Kingdom is too expansive for our current usage means that whatever he calls an "United Kingdom" surname is inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to have an impact on his theories as to the names in the book. Yes, there are some Irish names in there that we today wouldn't include, but I'm not using it for "is this name a UK name or not"; I'm using this for "is this name from Hebrew, Celtic, Gaelic, whatever." As to not using a single source, I'll agree to that, but right now, 99% of the articles have ZERO sources, so I'll take have a 1912 source over nothing (again, unless you want to go to the "Aaron is possibly Egyptian" argument for some reason). I'm just concerned about wanting to move the articles from Category:Surnames down somewhere. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Re-reading the MacNicol problem, ok, that's a bit more complicated. We have Scottish, Scottish Gaelic, and Harrison's German and Celtic theories. Category:Scottish Gaelic-language surnames would cover the Scottish, Scottish Gaelic and even Celtic (which is the larger category for Gaelic languages), but I think Harrison's German theory should be given equal weight to HH's and Cottle's. I'm leaving that as it right now. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi,

In your edit in Chemical Revolution you deleted a source due to a dead link - but you could have easily found the new link by just searching for "Chemical Revolution" on the university page. When you encounter a dead link, please try to fix it, or, failing that, tag it with "{{dead link}}". Maybe you can't connect to a site due to some error with your own connection, or the site is temporarily down. When another user encounters that tag, and the link is still dead, he'll know it wasn't a fluke.

Thanks, okedem ( talk) 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. I'm not sure that I'm always willing to start searching for where things have gone, since it isn't usually easy, but I agree that putting "{{dead link}}" is a good idea and I'll try to make a habit of doing that. The funny thing was, my attention was focussed on the phrase "seven different gases", which I replaced with "several different gases", but only after spending some time on trying to find out who had put those words there in the first place. It turns out that he seems to have left WP. So I wasn't really being as lazy as you might suppose. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, just to let you know I am bowing out of the discussion regarding this page out of frustration. I have unwatched the page. However, if you need support on some issue (since I agree with your viewpoint), ping me on my talk page and I will weight in. Personally, I do not think the article can be saved from academic jargon poison. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

STG, thanks for restarting the discussion at the AR. I just wanted to let you know that I will be responding rather slowly there. My father just had open heart surgery and I am busy with that. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Awadewit ( talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Please read the discussion on the talk page about the primary topic and the order before editing Lincoln again. A consensus has been reached that Abraham Lincoln needs to be first, as it is a core biography and has 10-15x the hits of any other article with Lincoln in the title Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear STG,
Thanks v. much for the article on Watson Forbes. I was hoping someone might have a go at this and you have made a nice job of it. The Stratton and Aeolian articles were crying out for this link. With best wishes, Eebahgum ( talk) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

My pleasure. Now I need to go and practise my viola ... SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of A. R. Whatmore, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://family-tree.co.uk/familyblogs/bessie/2008/01/20/arthur-reginald-whatmore-actor-dramatist-and-theatre-director. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey there,

I saw your note on Van Hoonacker, and well: the right way to write that last name is with a capital V (names like that in Flemish with a small v indicate that the family's nobility, which Van Hoonacker's family is not, I know some of the descendants and am - among others - working with Van Hoonacker's personal archives). So, if this answers your question: the capital V is the right way to go, I may have forgotten to change some of them, feel free to do so!

Prioriteit 22:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prioriteit ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for redirecting this. I was unaware that there was a longer list elsewhere. Everything seems to be working fine now. Bobo . 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This is from a while ago, but your response took my quote way out of context. You said the statement "Personally I don't like SPAs" is a gross violation of good faith, when clearly if you read the response fully, the statement refers to disliking SPA tags, not disliking SPAs. I certainly mispoke myself and edited my comment to reflect this. Thank you for correcting me. MATThematical ( talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, on that understanding I'm very happy to apologise. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh 2000 year old Ethiopian spirit guide. Derek Acorah needs you to tell him info!! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Indeed. But usually I don't tell him the truth. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Just wondering whether I have offended you in some way. Four edits I have made recently were reverted by yourself. All of these were well cited. Either you have some issue with me (maybe I reverted an edit you did) or you don't like Hugh Allison, who was in some way mentioned in all the edits you reverted. If the issue is with myself, I'd like to offer you a peace pipe and ask what I have done so I can beg forgiveness. If I am making a simple mistake, please show me the way. Etc etc etc. -- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 00:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for your response. Have also replied to that on my talk page-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Thanks again for your responses. Have again replied-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I could not think of anything more like and OOPA than the Ica stones! Why the revertion? -- Againme ( talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Replied at Talk:Ica stones#OOPA again. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Answered there. You seen like a smart guy. :) -- Againme ( talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

fyi Geo Swan ( talk) 23:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

replied on article talk page. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Over on Talk:Sharif al-Din you wrote something that I think was incorrect. I am drawing your attention to my reply. Possibly you actually agree with me, and I misunderstood you, or you misspoke.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi I was surprised to find that the merge of these two pages was done by someone who is clearly an experienced Wikipedian. In my opinion, there are two important issues with this merge:

1. No note of the merge was made in the edit summary; this is required to comply with the licensing conditions. ( Help:Merging)
2. The merged page does not have the correct content or style for a disambiguation page; indeed this is why I performed a split in the first place, in order to separate the two types of content with distinct and separate purposes. ( WP:DAB and MOS:DAB)

I hope you will take these into account in the future. Many thanks, -- MegaSloth ( talk) 22:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I note on further investigation that this issue appears to be more complex than I first realised - you appear to have undertaken a rationalisation of some Muslim given name pages - a task that certainly needed doing. Nevertheless, my concerns remain - there need to be separate given name and disambiguation pages, per consensus as described in WP:DAB, MOS:DAB and some anthroponymy-related policies and guidelines linked from these pages. Also, attribution certainly needs fixing for some of your edits. Rather than unpicking your edits, which appear to have been done with care and no doubt took some time to complete, perhaps a better resolution would be to fix attribution per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution and then re-split the pages into separate given name and disambiguation pages (this type of splitting is a relatively simple process). I look forward to your opinions on this matter. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 23:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

1. Your first point is easily dealt with. Attribution is required when a merge has been carried out by cutting and pasting. I have not been using any cutting and pasting from existing disambiguation or name pages (except my own text for the meaning of "Abdul"). I created this new page entirely from scratch, and there are a host of differences from the old one, as will be clear if you compare the contents.
2. As to what is appropriate for the content and structure of the pages concerned, we need to consider two points:
   1. The name we are talking about in this case is probably represented in the bearer's native language as عبدالحلیم or अब्दुल हलीम or even Абдуль Халим. There are numerous ways of transliterating that into the Latin alphabet, and although sometimes a particular person's name will have a tranliteration which has become standard, in many other cases this is not so. For disambiguation purposes, therefore, it is best if all feasible representations are in the same place.
   2. Nobody, or virtually nobody, is in fact just called "Abdul Halim". Typically someone of this name has several additional names, either in a form described in Arabic name or Indian name, or with a surname of some sort. Wikipedia article titles are meant to use the commonest form, but often this is not universally used, and someone might easily be searching with a different form. To separate out a page with people apparently (but not really) just called Abdul Halim from a longer list called Abdul Halim (name), which is the way things were before, is not in fact user-friendly. I notice that you've done something similar with Abdur Rahim (disambiguation). I think that in doing so you are just creating confusion. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised you say you created the pages from scratch; there are indeed differences and I do not dispute you have put considerable work of your own into them, but there do seem to be remaining similarities that suggest some carry-over of content. However the creative content of these pages is limited and thus any possible harm minimal, so I will simply take your word that these pages are indeed your own creatons and let the matter rest.

I readily accept that there are various transliterations of these names, and it is sensible to combine the transliterations into a single page. That is not at all controversial, indeed as I mentioned above, it definitely needed doing.

Name pages and disambiguation pages do serve distinct functions and need to be kept distinct, per WP:Disambiguation. A name page discusses the origins, meaning, distribution and use of a name, and may also contain lists of notable people possessing the name, and other name related information. This is what your pages do, and they are indeed name pages. Disambiguation pages serve a quite different function; they serve to guide people to the correct topic where more than one topic exists that might reasonably be called by that title. This might or might not be a full Arabic or Indian name, and for a disambiguation page, that isn't important; disambiguation pages are concerned simply with guiding people to the correct concept associated with a particular string of characters or set of variant spellings; the words' origins, meanings or relationships to other concepts are irrelevant in this context. What is important is that "in a sufficiently general context", the subject might be referred to by that title. All this has been agreed by consensus between Wikipedia editors and recorded as the disambiguation guidelines in WP:Disambiguation and MOS:DAB. I do not see any reason to ignore this consensus here. Your pages do not disambiguate well, because they contain other text and refer to subjects in the lists that are not ambiguous with the page title, according to the criteria set out in the disambiguation guidelines. Separate disambiguation pages according to these guidelines are required. My attempts at creating these pages may not have been the best scheme; I'm happy to discuss how best to organise the disambiguation pages, but such pages are required in this case. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 15:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm grateful that you prompted me to re-read WP:Disambiguation. I looked there for guidance on the treatment of names and found it in the second paragraph, with the example Rice (disambiguation) which immediately led on to Rice (surname). This latter is a name page which also functions as a disambiguation page; the origin of the name is given there, together with a fairly comprehensive list of people who have it. There is no separate disambiguation page for people with the surname Rice. This is precisely the same set of purposes that I had in creating Abdul Halim, so it is comforting to discover that what I did fully accords with WP policy, as well as with user-friendliness and common sense. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry to resurrect this issue after a very long while, however, the example of rice perfectly illustrates my point; the current Abdul Halim is a name page, analagous to Rice (surname). As such it is a perfectly good page. However, in creating it you have removed the necessary and separate page which disambiguates between uses of the term "Abdul Halim", analagous to Rice (disambiguation): Abdul Halim (disambiguation) is currently a redirect to Abdul Halim, which is not a disambiguation page as it does not follow the disambiguation guidelines I referred to above. Also, by placing the name page at Abdul Halim, you give it the status of primary topic. It is more likely that one of the other uses should be there, or it should be the disambiguation page. I suggest you correct your edits to be in line with current guidelines by moving the current Abdul Halim to Abdul Halim (name) and creating a new disambiguation page at Abdul Halim, following the guidelines at WP:D and MOS:D. You will need to do this for any other names you treated in this way. Thank you. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 11:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I've modified the categories to make clear that it's a name page. It also serves a disambiguation purpose, as many name pages do. The name can perfectly well be its own primary topic; that helps to prevent the arbitrary grabbing of common Arabic names as primary topic names for articles about fairly obscure people, as has often happened. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Do I take it you are declining to restore the disambiguation pages you removed when you made your original edits to Abdul Halim and other similar Arabic name pages?

Please review WP:Primary topic to see the criteria for a primary topic. Your assertions about the Abdul Halim name do not even come close. A quick review of the popularity of all the "Abdul Halim" pages reveals the following page views for each in October:

• Abdul Halim 445
• Abdul Halim (Indonesia) 257
• Abdul Halim of Kedah 1446

I.e. the article Abdul Halim of Kedah, which has a good claim to the article title "Abdul Halim", has over 3 times as many page views as the name page (I have not yet investigated possible alternate transliterations). These statistics indicate there is no primary topic and the (currently missing) disambiguation page should go at Abdul Halim.

-- MegaSloth ( talk) 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that there is a serious issue here. Let's discuss it in the context of Abdur Rahim. There you created the page Abdur Rahim (disambiguation), which lists just five dab entries, selected apparently on the basis of the way the name appears in the wikipedia article. As you know nobody is really called just Abdur Rahim without further names, and there are about 50 articles on the subject of people one of whose names is Abdur Rahim, with transliterations often widely varying for the same person. Someone looking for someone of that name who found their way to that dab page, and not finding the man or woman they were looking for there, would probably conclude that the article they wanted didn't exist. This is not user-friendly, and destroys the whole point of having a dab page.

In deciding how to structure these things, we need to be guided by the following:

1. Wikipedia principles. In this context this means obeying
   1. WP:RS, which I've been doing and can add further references where necessary
   2. WP:NPOV, which governs the tone of the descriptions and also, I think prevents us from arbtrarily selecting some entries as more important than others, except where the situation is very clear. This leads to a presumption against having a primary topic, except in a very few cases.
2. user-friendliness, which implies that any user can easily find their way to any sought article in a straightforward way, and will be led to believe that an article doesn't exist only when it really doesn't
3. avoidance of duplication, since it's twice as difficult to keep duplicated information up to date
4. following guidelines such as WP:MOSDAB. These are largely good advice, but they are advice, not mandatory. I put them this late because if the other criteria conflict with one of them, it would show that the guideline needs changing, and we're allowed to propose that. The possibility of name pages which are also dab pages is never explicitly considered in the guidelines as far as I've seen, but there are many cases where it's appropriate, so the right thing to do is to draft rules which will govern that case.
5. allocating the right category. The category system is a mess, but luckily it doesn't matter.

If you want to experiment I suggest you use Abdur Rahim, since you've already started. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

This discussion is now moving on to a wider basis, assuming that I am correct in understanding you are implying that the current guidelines are inappropriate, since Abdul Rahim is one of many possible transliterations of the same Arabic name. I disagree; the simplest solution – as discussed in the guidelines – is to redirect all transliterations existing as titles on Wikipedia to a single disambiguation page. Since the terms of the discussion are widening, I don't think discussing this on a user's talk page is appropriate any longer, as wider participation will be required. I suggest we both direct any further discussions to an appropriate talk page to allow for this.

Since you suggest using Abdur Rahim, I am happy to begin to restore this set of pages to compliance with the guidelines, and we can discuss any issues there. I do not accept your characterisation of these corrections as an "experiment", a description that might better apply to your decision to depart from the guidelines. I acknowledge that guidelines are not mandatory, but they are effectively a codification of consensus and are not to be disregarded lightly.

-- MegaSloth ( talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Further discussion of this subject-matter appears at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#use of references. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? thank you. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

reply Dloh cierekim 13:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. You were mentioned here [ [12]]. I hope you can take part. Best Regards, Smatprt ( talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear user,

This is a quick message to inform you that I have taken the Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation. I will be spending a day or so trying to get an understanding of the dispute and create a framework to take the discussion forward.

Please understand that mediation is not a quick process and that a fair amount of patience is required. If any of you have any question feel free to contact me by email through the wiki interface.

Many Thanks

Your Mediator - Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question. I have archived the rest of the page and this page will be the main page for this mediation Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Samuel, after moving a page you may replace the remaining redirect with an article or disambig page. This would prevent fixing redirects to the new target. If you would keep that redirect without fixing its redirects just write _STATICREDIRECT_ to its content. I've changed the behavior of redirect bots especially for this request to keep redirects pointing to a static redirect unchanged. This gives you enough time to check every link. If you are ready you should remove this magic word. I guess this is in your sense and the best solution for your work. Regards Xqt ( talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I am sorry. This magic word is __STATICREDIRECT__ (two underlines on both sides) Xqt ( talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply

"This template is only used for kings, etc." Is that so? then why is it, at the same time, used for letters of the Alphabet, Periodic elements, Books of the Bible, legendary High Priests, and other such unrelated topics?

In 1 Kings 19:16, God commands Elijah to anoint Elisha as "Prophet in your place" (literally, "in your office"). One could easily estimate other prophets who might have assumed this office as well, but that would be OR so I limited the template, until other users could expand it, to Elijah and Elisha. -- Nate5713 ( talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I've shifted this discussion to Talk:Elijah. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Nishidani's talk page is on my watchlist, so I've just seen your comment to Tom Reedy. I have read his words several times. I confess I am utterly at a loss to understand how it vioaltes WP:AGF. This kind of accusation seems to fly around freely on this topic. Perhaps you could explain the nature of the violation. Paul B ( talk) 12:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I've continued this discussion over there. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Greetings SamuelTheGhost. I happened to notice your appropriate policing of Nishidani in re the SAQ page. Speaking as another editor who may have a difference of opinion with you regarding the merits of the traditional view, but appreciates your commitment to fairness, I just wanted to say "thanks." Nishidani's behavior on this page is that of a fanatical ideologue. He does great damage to the page. I hope you will join in the discussion about the proposal to nominate the page in its current form as a Wikipedia model page, if you have not already done so. Imho, the page is nowhere near being a model of NPOV. Thanks. -- BenJonson ( talk) 01:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I'm coming across as un-helpful. I don't understand what your issue is completely and have been trying to tell you what current practice is, not necessarily to tell you what precisely you should do. I am against a hybrid page as one of the goals of WP:MOSDAB is to have a consistent "look" to the page for fast navigation. If we have a hybrid, people will be a little confused and slow down.

Its sounds like you want to create a name page for the Arabic names. You don't NEED to create a dab page. If it becomes apparent one is necessary, it can be created. But if you are going to start with all the articles about people that contain the name - and include a paragraph about the name - it sounds like you are completely within the "name article" space. Why worry about a dab page? Why not just do name pages? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for you message. I'd be very happy to create just name pages - unfortunately there are constraints over there too. Specifically, where a name also happens to be name of a place, for example, I've put it in under "See also" ot "Other" etc, then name page specialists have objected to that. Logically they have a point. All I want to do is to have sensible pages contining sensible useful and well-sourced collections of material, but I keep being told that the categorisations that have been set up are allowing no place for them. It gets a bit frustrating, as I'd rather work within the rules and be cooperative, but if the rules are to be interpreted too rigidly I have no option but to ignore them. I'm absolutely loyal to wikipedia's basic principles such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but some of the guidelines are too dogmatic and, I think, a bit out of touch with reality. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I see. My suggestion then would still be to create the name pages - that seems to be your primary goal. If there are non-name articles that are ambiguous with the name, also create a dab page that has those articles and the name article as entries - no need to add the individual names unless there are some truly outstanding individuals. There might (okay, WILL) be some discussion about what subset of the (possibly way too long) list of people should appear on the dab page, but that would be independent of what you contribute on the name page.

Which, if any, page is a primary topic would depend on the situation.

We can seem a bit odd and maybe dogmatic in the DAB community, but the overall goal of a DAB page is significantly different from other pages so we are looking at it from a slightly different angle. We have thought about it a lot. I hope we respond to reasonable criticism, but we want to make sure people understand the view from the dab side - and want to understand what people are trying to do to find an optimal solution for both the dab and other forces.

I think I've said all I can on the subject! I'll not bother further but will be happy to help if you think I can! Thanks for hearing me out.

--John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I absolutely think the templates are useful; even if there aren't articles in those categories now, there have been and surely will be again. Of course they shouldn't just be possible transliterations or guesses, but I don't think many people interpret them as such. (If you've seen that happen, then maybe I am wrong.) However, if you think it's necessary, feel free to reword them all to make that clear. There are quite a few of them to be found in the Category:Script talk header templates (many not made by me, but continuing the idea). Rigadoun (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. I see that you did already link it in the article, so sorry to bother you. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

SG, would you please take a look at Nina Green's complaint on the Edward de Vere talk page and see if you can help her? I know you come at this from a different perspective than I do, but I also know that you are knowledgeable about Wikipedia sourcing policies and with your perspective you might be able to help her understand what those polices are. I've pointed her to several guidelines and policies but apparently our perspectives are so divergent that we don't even define English words to mean the same. If you could help I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Re this edit, Bunces Court School is at Otterden. Lenham is quite a distance from Faversham. I've corrected the article. Mjroots ( talk) 07:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see comments [ here].  I thank you for your proposal.  If you still agree that this change is worthwhile, it needs to have a sponsor.  As an IP address, I cannot edit policy Project Pages.  Also, I've made the last three posts to the section and there have been no responses.  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.119 ( talk) 21:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, I've tried it. We'll see what happens. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Samuel, I so far I came up with these sources: for Albanian:

http://www.20000-names.com/origin_of_baby_names/etymology_Z_male/meaning_of_the_name_zamir.htm

http://www.watersee.net/component/comprofiler/userprofile/Zamir%20Dedej.html

http://www.wellness.com/dir/2227583/internist/mi/grand-rapids/zamir-podgorica-specturm-health-md

http://bih.worldfootball.net/spieler_profil/zamir-shpuza/#redirect

http://www.seeu.edu.mk/en/information/news-a-events/377-inauguration-of-new-rector-profdr-zamir-dika

for Slavic:

So far I only found this one http://crosbi.znanstvenici.hr/datoteka/233303.stubbs.pdf and it's not a personal name but the name of an organisation. Although I know a person (a Southslav by ethnicity) with this name, my impression is that Zamir is much more prevalent among Albanians than among South slavs. In any case, do you think we could at least put on the page that conincidentally "Za mir" literally means "For Peace" in southslavonic language(s)? If so, would it than be sufficient to provide a dictionary as a source?

If you think these sources are not really sufficient, no probs, I'll carry on loking for some better ones, for both Albanina and Southslavonic Zamir, but at least they show that Zamir does exist as a name among Albanians and that it (conincidentally) has Albanian language etymology.

Regards Besajone ( talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Your first reference above is the only one that is really explicit (although its etymology of the Arabic is contradicted by other references), so I've put it into the article. All the other cases you cite may be uses of the muslim name, of Arabic origin, though even if they are, the slavonic meaning might be providing psychological support for them. I hope you're happy with the article as it is now. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Samuel, thanx for the Good Faith assistnace. Article is fine as far as I am concerned.Regards. Besajone ( talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Mispelling or misuse of a man's name is not a trivial matter. Yes, so I will return "von" to the lower case whenever it appears in mixed caps and lowercase fonts (with one exception; see 3rd bullet below). All that I can do is observe the usage in the published literature:

• See the frontice-page of his 1967 From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical logic, 1979-1931, 1976 3rd printing, Harvard university Press, Cambridge, MA, ISBN  0-674-32449-8 (pbk.)

In particular, if you have a cc, you'll observe that both Notes to the Second and Third Printings have his name spelled with a lower-case v.

• Also, if you have a cc of the 1986 Kurt Gödel: Volume I Publications 1929-1936, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, ISBN 13:978-0-195-14720-9, you'll see on the frontice-page, again, his name spelled with a small v. Also, look at the Index of this volume. Here you will see the name in the index spelled with a small v, as also you will see the names van Dalen, van Reutselaar, von Juhos, and von Neumann. Also see the annotated bibliography p. 456 of this same volume. This usage continues through Volume II as well: observe the note re his death on page vi.

• The only question I have re a change is the proper way to do it when the v appears as the beginning of a sentence. On the one hand we have a clue from the index of I. Grattain-Guiness, 2000, The Search for Mathematical Roots: 1870-1940, Oxford University Press, Princeton NJ, ISBN:0-691-05858-X (pbk.: alk. paper) where van Heijenoort appears in lower case but all entries begin with capital letters. In fact, the names that begin with lower-case v are separated from the other indexed entries that begin with capital V. On the other hand Dawson's, 1997, Logical Dilemmas: The Life and Work of Kurt Gödel, A. K. Peters, Wellesley MA, ISBN: 1-56881-256-6 capitalizes the V when it is the lead word of a sentence (one instance, page 216). Also, on p. 508 of Grattain-Guiness we see a sentence begin as follows "Von Neumann 1931...". So on this evidence we should keep the V capitalized at the beginning of a sentence.

The problem in all of this, and I can see that it has carried through in Wikipedia with all sorts of vons and vans, is the capitalization in the title of the article. Wvbailey ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Bill reply

Why did you delete my notification? The whole paragraph contributed by you to the article, with an exception of a slight change in the first paragraph, is a copy of the text on the publisher's website. Thus, I don't really understand what you mean by 'sense of proportion failure', as copy-pasting text from other websites is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, editing someone's comments on your talk page without a good reason is generally frowned upon. -- Kajervi ( talk) 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I admit I was lazy in not paraphrasing from my sole source. I've just been looking a Fair use and would have no difficulty in arguing that it applied here. There's no question of the copyright holders suffering any damage, in my lifting of a single paragraph advertising their journal. If you were really worried about wikipedia's infringement, you could just as easily have rewritten the stub, thus creating far less new text than you did with your warnings. You could still have dropped me a note explaining why you found it necessary to do so. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

As an editor previously involved in the Shakespeare Authorship Question mediation, you should note that there is a related Request for Arbitration [13], at which you may wish to participate. Smatprt ( talk) 16:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{ Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{ User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia ads	file info – #226

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 07:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC). reply

The WikiProject Anthroponymy Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 1 · Jan 1, 2011 – Jan 31, 2011 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue To remove yourself from this list click here
Main Project ( discussion) • Project resources • Project Standards ( discussion) • Project Category Structure ( discussion) • Project Participants ( discussion) • Project Assessment ( discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Current Newsletter contributors Hutcher ( talk · contribs) Who is new? JohnCengiz77 ( talk · contribs) Neelix ( talk · contribs) Fortdj33 ( talk · contribs) What's new? A new design has been implemented to make the WikiProject a little easier to work with. A Standards document has been started, which will always be available at the WP:APO Navigation menu above. Please help us by contributing. We need your say at Standard discussions to build a consensus and therefore a solid standard! How to help WikiProject Anthroponymy Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Please check out our Standards and discuss potential changes at Standard discussions. Please help out! Expand the articles in Category:Given name stubs and Category:Surname stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy:  ·  history ·  watch ·  refresh · Updated 2015-02-08 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Loretta Expand : Adrian, Ciarán, Name change, Sinclair (surname) Infobox : Gul (name) Merge : Family name and Surname, Martin (name) and Martyn Split : Fraser (surname) split from Clan Fraser Patti (name) ? Patti and Pattie Kim (surname) ? Kim Björk (name) ? Björk (disambiguation) Michelle (name) ? Michelle Luna (name) ? Luna (re-split) Trevor ? Trevor (disambiguation) Bramwell (name) ? Bramwell (disambiguation) Cindy (given name) ? Cindy, Cyndi, Cyndy Cynthia (disambiguation)  ? Cynthia Pigott (surname)  ? Pigott, Piggott Pigot (surname)  ? Pigot Alicia (given name)  ? Alicia Clare (surname)  ? Clare Cortes (surname)  ? Cortes Prudence (given name)  ? Prudence, Prue Prunella (given name)  ? Prunella	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Article alerts Anthroponymy articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 2 FL 2 2 GA 2 3 5 B 6 24 6 10 2 48 C 5 19 24 55 37 140 Start 19 47 167 463 10 370 1,076 Stub 5 16 142 3,571 22 1,606 5,362 List 6 15 97 5,863 42,370 22,652 71,003 Category 5 878 883 Disambig 10 149 11,424 4 11,587 File 3 3 Project 14 14 Redirect 2 2 13 1,878 21,209 23,104 Template 105 105 NA 6 4 28 38 Other 6 6 Assessed 43 126 461 12,004 76,045 24,699 113,378 Unassessed 1 34 29 11,012 11,076 Total 43 126 462 12,038 76,074 35,711 124,454 WikiWork factors ( ?) ω = 38,266 Ω = 5.77
Article of the month – List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology In Norse mythology, a valkyrie is one of a host of female figures who choose which warriors will win or die in battle. The valkyries bring their chosen who have died bravely in battle to the afterlife hall of the slain, Valhalla, ruled over by the god Odin, where the deceased warriors become einherjar. There, when the einherjar are not preparing for the events of Ragnarök, the valkyries bear them mead. Valkyries also appear as lovers of heroes and other mortals, where they are sometimes described as the daughters of royalty, sometimes accompanied by ravens, and sometimes connected to swans. ( More...)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 06:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC). reply

After your allegation that 'indeed' was POV, I browsed the MoS, but the closest I could come was WP:OPED, which does not quite cover the sentiment. I used the word to keep the flow of the text going, which means I used it as a rhetorical device, but I don't see how it could insinuate POV. Please enlighten me. Hpvpp ( talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I've copied this to the article talk page and replied there. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please be more cautious in labelling edits as vandalism. This [14] for example certainly wasn't. It was an edit by a banned user and could have been reverted for that reason instead, had you wished William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'm sorry, you're right. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your hard work on disambiguation pages, it's appreciated. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

As the text above says "use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes". There has developed quite a long discussion on the talk page, in which you yourself have taken no part, but have seen fit to come in and revert me. Your advice as to my standards of behaviour would be more convincing if yours were higher. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey guys, a couple of templates used by WP:APO have been nominated for deletion. We could use your help to Oppose their deletion. If you agree the project needs them, as per WPAPO:HN then please vote Oppose here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Aboutgivenname

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC). reply

Hello. I had not noticed that you had completed the translation and moved the article Katajun Amirpur until you added the author link to another article that I watch. Thank you very much for that. nableezy - 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The WikiProject Anthroponymy Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 2 · Feb 1, 2011 – Feb 31, 2011 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue To remove yourself from this list click here
Main Project ( discussion) • Project resources • Project Standards ( discussion) • Project Category Structure ( discussion) • Project Participants ( discussion) • Project Assessment ( discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Current Newsletter contributors Hutcher ( talk · contribs) Who is new? williamb ( talk · contribs) What's new? WP:APO templates nominated for deletion! Please help us by Opposing the deletion, here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Aboutsurname Thanks for helping out with the Standards document which is always be available at the WP:APO Navigation menu above. Please help us by contributing. We need your say at Standard discussions to build a consensus and therefore a solid standard! How to help WikiProject Anthroponymy Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Please check out our Standards and discuss potential changes at Standard discussions. Please help out! Expand the articles in Category:Given name stubs and Category:Surname stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy:  ·  history ·  watch ·  refresh · Updated 2015-02-08 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Loretta Expand : Adrian, Ciarán, Name change, Sinclair (surname) Infobox : Gul (name) Merge : Family name and Surname, Martin (name) and Martyn Split : Fraser (surname) split from Clan Fraser Patti (name) ? Patti and Pattie Kim (surname) ? Kim Björk (name) ? Björk (disambiguation) Michelle (name) ? Michelle Luna (name) ? Luna (re-split) Trevor ? Trevor (disambiguation) Bramwell (name) ? Bramwell (disambiguation) Cindy (given name) ? Cindy, Cyndi, Cyndy Cynthia (disambiguation)  ? Cynthia Pigott (surname)  ? Pigott, Piggott Pigot (surname)  ? Pigot Alicia (given name)  ? Alicia Clare (surname)  ? Clare Cortes (surname)  ? Cortes Prudence (given name)  ? Prudence, Prue Prunella (given name)  ? Prunella	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Article alerts Anthroponymy articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 2 FL 2 2 GA 2 3 5 B 6 24 6 10 2 48 C 5 19 24 55 37 140 Start 19 47 167 463 10 370 1,076 Stub 5 16 142 3,571 22 1,606 5,362 List 6 15 97 5,863 42,370 22,652 71,003 Category 5 878 883 Disambig 10 149 11,424 4 11,587 File 3 3 Project 14 14 Redirect 2 2 13 1,878 21,209 23,104 Template 105 105 NA 6 4 28 38 Other 6 6 Assessed 43 126 461 12,004 76,045 24,699 113,378 Unassessed 1 34 29 11,012 11,076 Total 43 126 462 12,038 76,074 35,711 124,454 WikiWork factors ( ?) ω = 38,266 Ω = 5.77
Article of the month – Cailleach In Irish and Scottish mythology, the Cailleach (Irish pronunciation: [ˈkalʲəx], Irish plural [cailleacha] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [ˈkalʲəxə], Scottish Gaelic plural [cailleachan] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) /kaʎəxən/), also known as the Cailleach Bheur, is a divine hag, a creatrix, and possibly an ancestral deity or deified ancestor. The word simply means 'old woman' in modern Scottish Gaelic, and has been applied to numerous mythological figures in Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man. ( More...)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 09:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC). reply

Your comment here regarding WMC's political affiliations skirts uncomfortably close to the bounds of WP:NPA, namely "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." While you didn't make a direct attack, it's best not to refer to someone's politics (or religion or other affiliation) at all. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I have made a number of complaints on the Fads and fallacies talk-page to which you have not responded, viz here and here. Please respond. Hpvpp ( talk) 06:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If you mean general responses to what you have said, there's my reply here to which you never responded except for the NPA issue that we have since dealt with. If there's anything else that you regard as a "complaint" please say so, but I can assure you that I don't wish to be unpleasant or unfair. There are a couple of editors in this discussion who I really dislike, but you are not one of them. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, let's leave it. It's just that I get so frustrated in trying to move this discussion forward. It keeps splintering and there are loose ends dangling everywhere (yes, a bit of an exaggeration, but it has a kernel of truth). Hpvpp ( talk) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Samuel, I reported that I had asked for a review of the article and I accordingly asked for editors to hold off with editing for the time being. Please respect protocol. Hpvpp ( talk) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

There is no such protocol. After your unilateral request for review I held off for five days just in case there was some response. Not surprisingly, there has been none. Life goes on. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

And so I learn something new again. They appear to have there own priorities. Or maybe there is no "they". I don't know. But why so cynical? Apart from placing the request as I did, how else can we get the article assessed? Hpvpp ( talk) 07:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi!

Thanks for your message. How about this solution: we go back to the 'son of the king' and add a footnote that explains the KJV version?

Thanks! Bazuz ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

OK I could live with that. I've just checked the vulgate and that has "praecepit rex Hieremahel filio Ammelech ..." , so the KJV hadn't just made it up. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Fine then, I'll do it. Bazuz ( talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You undid my contribution to the article Abdel Nour and I reverted it back. Please do not undo it again. I do not want to see a link on that page to Ziad K Abdelnour. I trust that this is very clear and I thank you for your cooperation. Worldedixor ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC) reply

thank you for taking the time to explain. Worldedixor ( talk) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I see that you reverted my edit to this page. The page appeared on this error list of disambiguation pages ("dab pages") that had incorrectly formed links to other disambiguation pages. Since it was a dab page, I did a dab cleanup, removing things that don't belong on a dab page such as the narrative at the top and the reference section. If you want that content to remain, then the page should not be a dab page. Please decide which way you want it and either reinstate my changes or remove the "hndis" tag. Thanks. -- Auntof6 ( talk) 11:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I've removed the "hndis" tag. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Auntof6 ( talk) 03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello SamuelTheGhost, I'm quite new in wikipedia and my English perhaps not perfect.

What should it take to re-post my section into "Thy shall not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which you reverted recently?

What edits shall I introduce there?

I'm ok to publish it even as fairly tale, yet I wish to see it exactly on that page. Your interest in 1 Samuel 28:3-20 will get answered, I can not say day and hour.... Itiswritten98 ( talk) 23:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The answer to your question is given in WP:RS and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of established knowledge. It therefore requires that all its content is based on reliable information which has already been published elsewhere. The personal opinions of editors or the results of their original research are not admitted. If the material you want to include has been published by some recognised scholar of the subject, it can go in with a citation to where it was previously published. Less desirably, if your material is the teaching of a church or other religious body, it may be possible to include it, with attribution to the publications of that body. But if neither applies, it cannot be included, however true it may be. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Al-Sinnabra , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa ( talk) 05:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi ( talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

First off, move discussions are just that, discussions. They are not votes. Actions are based on the strength of the arguments. Your opposition was based on the fact that there are more then one person with the name Nhu. There was nothing provided in your position that indicated that Madame Nhu was ambiguous. The statement 'When our title is stiff, formal and fuddy-duddy compared to Britannica`s, that's just not right' carried no weight as an argument for moving. However the argument that 'Ngo Dinh Nhu' was not her name, and was not refuted, did carry a lot more weight. The other two articles did not mention that either of the was known as Madame Nhu, and you provided no evidence to say that Madame Nhu was also used by the other two people. So the bottom line is that this appears to be the common name for the person and it is not ambiguous. That means it gets moved. If there is a case that Madame Nhu is ambiguous, or that someone else for whom we have an article is also well know by that name, by all means open a new move request. But based on the arguments, it is probably not going to be returned to the previous name since that may not be accurate. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for correcting Nasrullah ----> Nasrullah (horse). As the equine Nasrullah appears in lots of pedigrees I will take extra care in future. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 15:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

You made an interesting point at Help:Searching/feedback#Feedback from SamuelTheGhost (27 September 2011). The best I can do for you is this search which returns 115 results - that's a search for pages that have "davo" excluding any that have "davos". Is that good enough? If not, post a reply here and I'll dig more deeply into the technical point you raised. -- John of Reading ( talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your reply. It's a great help, and I suppose I ought to have thought of that way myself, but didn't. At very least it would be worth describing that method in the documentation, and I'd still ideally like to have an option to suppress stemming at source. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, Sorry I'm only just getting around to starting the Samuel Watson horologist stuff, I've got a bunch of links and was just setting up to create the page - so I'm undoing your revert. Thought I'd better let you know. Incidentally I think you could have just got away with tagging it with a citation needed rather than remove the content. A quick google for "samuel watson" + clock, brings up over a hundred articles with him mentioned - only about 20 distinct things I've found in the first 100 or so but he apparently invented the stopwatch, the 5 minute repeater, made a clock for the king, was a contact of isaac newton, I don't really know much about him but he seems pretty notable in his field. Edward :)

I appreciate what you say, but disambiguation pages are mainly for disambiguating information which is already in wikipedia in some form, rather than being "to do" lists. Where the entry has no article there should be some helpful blue link. I followed the Stopwatch link, and there was no mention of him there. Disambiguation pages often get cluttered with unsourced and unlinked entries which someone wanted to put there, and my criteria for removing them will stay the same; it's not reasonable to expect a research effort for every case. I'll look out for the article with interest. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair enough - it wasn't intended to take more than 10 or 15 mins after updating the disambiguation page to get the article up - but work dragged me away in the interim, I don't know if your criteria include a leave it sit for X amount of time, and I understand it might not be feasible to do so. Oh and a google search for "william watson" + watch gave zero relevant entries, so I've removed the unsourced info and updated the history of coventry EdwardLane ( talk) 16:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for correcting my typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.121.92 ( talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SamuelTheGhost! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent addition. All assistance gratefully received. Marshall46 ( talk) 10:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I explained my removal on the talk page, which you ignored or didn't see. You replaced this material accusing me of trying to suppress something or other. I've expanded my comments on the talk page. If you can find any reliable source that says that stones decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing" were found in the 16th century, then let's see it. Skepdic doesn't actually say that, and the article shouldn't suggest a link. The original source seems to be a fringe writer who claimed a 'Father Simon' found engraved stones, but I can find no evidence for this. I've removed it again. Surely you can see that we must reliably source any claim for a relationship between some claim about 16th century stones and the Ica Stones? Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Repled at Talk:Ica stones. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Dougweller is obsessed with derailing that article. If he had his way, the page on arrowheads would be all about fake ones. 208.95.51.156 ( talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I moved the abovementioned article to Abdur Rehman (cricketer), and this move was reverted by you. I think my move was appropriate since the Abdur Rehman in question has received more coverage in the mainstream media than the others. However, if you disagree with what I have stated here, please let me know. Thanks. Telco ( talk) 19:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I've copied this message and replied at Talk:Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1980). SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I work overnights so tiredness isn't the issue. They are just simple mistakes on my part. Thanks for catching them. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I've undone that edit and will mention this situation to the maintainer of WPCleaner so that they can figure out why it is doing that. Thanks for letting me know. - Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of the history of Gibraltar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qaid ( 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) 10:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You may be interested to know that there's a new AFD discussion on this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden (2nd nomination). I'm mentioning this to you because I note that you took part in previous discussions about the notability/verifiability of this article. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Abdur Rahman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abdul Rahman (footballer) and Abdur Rehman (cricketer) ( 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) 10:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, do you agree to close the long and inactive discussions in the AAH page? (those inside "Discussions to close") They're just too long that affect the loading time of the page. Chakazul ( talk) ( list of RS for/against AAH) 15:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply

OK, I've no objection to that. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 18:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply

As a courtesy, could you offer a heads-up when you make essentially the same revision to numerous articles -- or in this case, redirects? I have explained, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_14, why I think being appointed as one of the delegates who wrote Afghanistan's new consistution is of comparable notability to being elected to its national legislature, thus qualifying them for consideration under WP:POLITICIAN. Perhaps you would consider offering an explanation as to why you excised these individuals from the disambiguation pages as "unknown". A significant fraction of the delegates will turn out to already have articles -- under alternate transliterations, as Pir Sayd Ahmad Gelani already had an article under Ahmed Gailani -- Pir and Sayd being merely honorifics, like Reverend.

Update

When I drafted the above I wasn't aware of how much effort you put into reverting my efforts: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

I wasn't aware of your comments at User talk:Boleyn#redlinks in dab pages

In this comment you wrote: "an editor has been systematically putting redlinked members of the Constitutional Loya Jirga into name or dab pages, and I've been removing them again."

In this comment you wrote: "My main concern was the redlink, not so much for its own sake but because if is representative of so many, as you can see by looking at the reversions and deletions in my contribs of today (14 April), the great majority of which are similar redlink removals. I'm absolutely sure that most of these fall under the MOS:DABRL ruling ‘Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.’" This seems to establish that you knew you were reverting a single contributor.

Really, shouldn't you have initiated this discussion with me -- not with User:Boleyn? And really, shoulnd't you have voiced your concern with me prior to systematically reverting several days worth of work?

With regard to MOS:DABRL, please remember that this is an international project. Drafting a constitution is a very important task. You may think that articles on these individuals "...are unlikely ever to be written". But these individuals weren't nobodyies, weren't, to use your term "unknowns". They were all chosen because Karzai's team regarded them as notable citizens of Afghanistan.

Some of these individuals went on, stood for office, and were elected to the first session of the national assembly they created. Others went on to notable posts, or had held notable posts in the past, including former Presidents or cabinet members. Some of these individuals already have articles, under different transliterations.

Figuring out when we have multiple articles about a single individual, whose name is written in a language than can ambiguously transliterated a wide variety of ways is extremely challenging. Sometimes it has taken years for it to become clear. We need all the tools available, to help detect when multiple articles are describing a single individual -- including, I suggest disambiguation pages. This is an additional reason why I think your reversions of my efforts was a mistake.

I am going to ask you to consider reverting your reversions. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• First, you are right that not notifying you about my concerns was a breach of etiquette, and for that I apologise.
• I do stand by my judgement that most of the dab page entries we are concerned with fall under the MOS:DABRL ruling "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written". I am not basing this on any opinion about the importance of the Constitutional Loya Jirga, but solely on grounds of realism. For many of these individuals nothing is known to wikipedia except their names, and leaving large numbers of redlinks on dab pages for the indefinite future simply clutters them pointlessly. Where you or anyone else can create a viable article, I have no problem with that, but I think the dab pages should wait until then.
• A similar situation has existed for some time with Guantanamo detainees, and I have applied the same criteria. I would remind you that although I have been aware of AfD discussions about many of those, I never took part in them.
• I have created or rewritten a large number of dab and/or name pages, particularly relating to Arabic names, as no doubt you know. As you say, there can be major problems with transcription variations, and I have quite often found duplicate articles and flagged them for merging. But this work gets completely out of hand unless restricted to blue-linked entries except in those rare cases where it is quite clear that an article ought to exist and is likely to. I cannot honestly see any reason to change my attitude on that. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• You write: "I am not basing this on any opinion about the importance of the Constitutional Loya Jirga, but solely on grounds of realism. For many of these individuals nothing is known to wikipedia except their names..."

First, can I ask how closely you looked into whether sources can be found? I have already started articles on several of these individuals -- I suggest this shows that it is realistic to think articles about these individuals can be started.

Second, you say your approach to merging and resolving instances of multiple articles, or multiple references, to a single individual, known by multiple names, revolves around blue links? You say redlinks complicate your efforts? Could you expand on how, exactly redlinks impede your efforts?

My approach to the same task revolves around using both redlinks and bluelinks. The example I offered above, that lead to my creation of a redirection of Pir Sayd Ahmad Gelani to Ahmed Gailani was based on a combined use of redlinks and bluelinks. I created a number of redirects from the names used on Constitutional Loya Jirga to articles about those individuals using alternate transliterations, that all required a combined use of both redlinks and bluelinks.

What I am afraid will be the end result of your reversions -- if they are left to stand -- will be the squandering of dozens of hours. I would far rather realize that there were multiple references to an individual, under different names, prior to the creation of second, third, fourth redundant articles, which then have to be merged. Even a mere stub, with a couple of good references, takes about half an hour. Please don't force me to waste my time on stubs by stripping the project of tools useful to help prevent the waste of time on redundant copies of articles on individuals known by multiple names.

• WRT apologies -- since hardly anyone is good at them I wrote an essay about that -- User:Geo Swan/on apologies. Feel free to follow the advice in that essay in your interactions with me. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Let me also followup on the portion of your comment where you wrote: "leaving large numbers of redlinks on dab pages for the indefinite future simply clutters them pointlessly." User:Boleyn already addressed this point on her talk page. Someone who comes across an Afghan name and comes looking for information about them benefits from a redlink entry on a DAB page:

1. Maybe they are satisfied learning that the individual served on the Constitutional Loya Jirga? Or after looking at that article, and seeing what Province they were from?
2. Maybe they look at the blue linked articles on the DAB page, are uncertain that the information they read elsewhere could apply to any of the namesakes with bluelinks, but probably applied to the redlinked individual?
3. Maybe that reader takes the further step of clicking on the redlinked article, clicking on "what links here", reads the other articles that had those redlinks, agrees that none of the other references established the notability required to turn that redlink into a bona fide bluelinked article -- but with the addition of the information that took them to the DAB page a bluelinked article was now in order.

Some contributors act like we should fear the redlink. A redlink conveys several kinds of important information to readers. The wikipedia should remain a work in progress, with no fear of redlinks.

Back in 2004 it was a redlink that turned me from a a reader to a contributor. Being taken to a page that told me no article on that topic had been written yet didn't disappoint me. I knew that the wikipedia relied on reader contributed material, but I wasn't sure how that happened, when I clicked on my first redlink I realized how easy contribution was.

Don't fear the redlink. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! John Cengiz talk 08:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 11:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, I was surprised I managed to be the first there! SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Samuel! Can you just tell me please, why this move? That is by far the most common use, so... -- WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry if you found my move a bit bold, but I'd only ever encountered "Tutin" as a surname. As well as those who already have wp articles, such as Dorothy Tutin, there's the botanist Tom Tutin who ought to have one. I've been updating the links and found two or three cases where a bare link Tutin was being used for the botanist. My intention was to catrry on and create Tutin as a dab page, where the town, the toxin and the surname could all have their place. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for seeking out and adding articles that should exist but do not. Your contributions of biographies for the editors of Flora Europaea are much appreciated! EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I've taken that as a WP:PROD undeletion request so I've restored the article at Abd (Arabic). Feel free to do a cleanup and add more references. Best wishes, Whouk ( talk) 11:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

That's a fair point. Perhaps if a closing admin finds that there was no suitable edit summary, they should reset the time on the PROD with a suitable edit summary? Whouk ( talk) 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Recording the PROD proposal in edit summaries. Cheers, Whouk ( talk) 22:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing those links, the format's changed since last I edited and I'd missed that bit! Coincidentally, I'm playing John the Baptist in the production... Brickie ( talk) 15:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know you are. I'll explain when the Potters next meet. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• I have replied your concerns relating Shafiq-ur-Rahman (humorist) on my talk page. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 16:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply

After what you've been discussing-put some honey in it, and thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC) reply

We don't need consensus to remove the e-book. YOU need consensus to add it. RfC shows no such consensus. If you disagree, get an administrator to formally close the RfC, and if he decides consensus is to add, you can. If not, it can't be added. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I disagree with everything you say, and see no merit in attempting to discuss it here on my talk page. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

FYI, just in case you weren't following it. Cheers Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply

May I ask why you reverted my three edits on the Black Athena article? what did I do wrong? yannako — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannako ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

replied at Talk:Black Athena. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

hi SamuelTheGhost, thanks for that notification. Please feel free to contact me via my website (see my User page). Lucy Skywalker ( talk) 15:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, I cleaned up Driver (disambiguation) and mentioned your revert at Talk:Driver, thought I should inform you, regards Widefox; talk 12:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You have edited the article Wind quintet in the past.

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Wind quintet over the criteria for inclusion of artists in the "Prominent wind quintets" section, where the vast majority of entries are WP:Redlinks. The proposal is that listed quintets should either have their own Wikipedia article or should have a link to a reliable source (not the quintets own PR, but an external source) to show that they are notable.

Please add your opinion here. - Thanks - Arjayay ( talk) 09:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, you asked for my reasons for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SamuelTheGhost/Marcel Leroux as "delete all". After 8 days of discussion, no-one agreed with your arguments that the page should be kept, and I found a sufficient consensus amongst participants in the discussion that the pages should be deleted. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If you disagree with the outcome, there's always WP:DRV (although I'm not recommending you go there, naturally). If you disagree with the way you were treated, that's not for me as the closing admin to sort out and you have other options. As for whether you won the argument merely because nobody responded, that's not how it works. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I've reverted you [51]. Jokes are all very well, in their place. AFD probably isn't such a place. In particular, if the person you are making what-you-think-are friendly jokes objects, its rather unfriendly / incivil of you to re insert them William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply

User:SamuelTheGhost/John F. Ashton, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SamuelTheGhost/John F. Ashton and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SamuelTheGhost/John F. Ashton during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Please stop deleting content which stayed in this article for two years. If you have your own opinion, there is an option to discuss it. When other readers agree, we could modify it. 78.105.139.126 ( talk) 12:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Replied in article talk page. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

SarahStierch ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your post! My first from a ghost. The next weeks will be too busy for me. Later I intend naming Khair al-Din. Hayreddin also but stated below.

I touch not Amalek, nor sorceror's maltech across eons, archons, weird ayes and stranger skies. Mercy of the Spirit shines in between the writ. So it seems to me from what I can see. What's around the corner may, or may not matter. Elfelix ( talk) 03:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi SamuelTheGhost, I wonder if you could please use en-dashes (–) when adding to the list, so myself and others don't have to correct the edits afterwards. Just look at how the rest of the entries are all styled and follow them. Otherwise, I don't mean to discourage you, so thanks for adding to the list. Hamamelis ( talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

OK. I was just copying as much as possible from the IPNI entry, but I'll check more carefully next time. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I would like to inform you that disambugation pages about malay names you edited should not have references in them since they are not articles. I have removed all of them for you. Cheers, Hz. tiang 04:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The article Nasir Uddin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Message copied to User talk:FreeRangeFrog SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Samuel,

André Lawalrée was not really an explorer : he did numerous fields trips namely in Belgium, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, France and Switzerland, but he went only once to Belgian Congo ! He published numerous contributions on the Central African flora which are all based on herbarum specimens collected by other botanists. A. Lawalrée was also a specialist of Pierre-Joseph Redouté and he wrote several biographical notices on various botanists. I added two biobliographical references to the page, but I cannot write in English without mistakes, so I give you the information, you can rectify and complete yourself.

Regards, Cymbella ( talk) 21:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Replied at Talk:André Lawalrée. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. The vandalism about the laws for eating at the dinner table was nice, pity we can't keep it! Benji man ( talk) 12:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy ( talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Why was the page moved? Sorry could not understand "over redirect: disambiguation" . Naushad does not have a disambig currently. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Came here with same complaint. I moved it back. If you want to move it again, please raise a WP:RM. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Replied at Talk:Naushad, which should be quicker than WP:RM. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I noticed your recent edit to the above with interest - do you have an earlier source for Michael Finnigen? The HSSB claims that it was made up by a Hackney Scout patrol while on a hike in 1912. Not sure about that, but it's the earliest printed source that I could find. Alansplodge ( talk) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

No, I don't have another source; it's a question of interpretation of their words. They say "Composed, on the model of an ancient fragment (the first verse), by Scouts ...in 1921", so clearly were saying that the first verse is older. But as we're saying "appeared in print" I suppose I should have left it as it was. I've changed it back. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. I don't have particularly strong views on the subject - just curious. Alansplodge ( talk) 18:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ata-ur-Rahman, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://cricket-want.blogspot.com/2011/08/abdur-rauf-pakistani-cricketer-pictures.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 21:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

As also stated in Talk:Ata-ur-Rahman, the copying is the othe way round. I re-used my own prose from Abdur Rauf which the cricket blogspot has also copied. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Hay, I just reverted your addition and I wanted to give you a quick explanation. Right now that page is under intense scrutiny by a few editors, and every claim is being heavily verified. Unfortunately I don't think that your addition would stand up to scepticism for three reasons. 1. anything that is critical of Emerson has been removed from the lede at one time or another in the last 48 hours. It was only a few hours ago that we got a somewhat stable entry for the criticism section in the lede. 2. The statement itself doesn't reference anything within the body of the article, and is therefore not consistant with wikipedia's WP:LEDE policy. 3. the source of your quote was a video, and it has been my experience that video's tend to get removed as WP:RS especially in BLP. I'm sorry, you kinda jumped into a hornets nest, and I'm trying to be the friendliest hornet. If you decide that you wish to peruse that edit, I would recommend finding multiple sources which identify that statement as significant, followup which makes it significant, and attaching it to the body of the article. Just my suggestion. cheers! Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Replied at Talk:Steven Emerson. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

thank you, I have read your concern and the other editors reply. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Why did you move Mohammed Rafique to Mohammed Rafique (footballer)? There is no one else by that name. Please don't do this without consulting other editors first. Coderzombie ( talk) 05:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

replied at Talk:Mohammed Rafique (footballer). SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I have started a section about you at WP:AN/I. Thanks. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I've broached the possibility of deleting the page David Passaro because of WP:1E. Instead his name would redirect to the prosecution section of Enhanced Interrogation techniques here. You had done some work on that page so I thought I should invite you to weigh in at Talk:David Passaro#Notability? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

What's your problem with this? The reason you have stated is 'unknown'. 'Unknown' to you, maybe. Or did you have another, unstated reason for deleting my addition of Hugh Evans? Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 06:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

replied at talk:Hugh Evans. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The reference appears to be to the British Board of Education Circular 555, 'Pronunciation of Latin,' issued 21 February 1907 (dated 14 February). The language used seems a little exaggerated; no doubt it took quite some time for the recommendations therein to be adopted, and depended on the local preferences of teachers and headmasters. RandomCritic ( talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've changed it. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tun razak. Since you had some involvement with the Tun razak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar ( talk) 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I thank you for your recent edit to " National Anthem of the Ancient Britons"; can I ask which edition of the Hackney Scout Song Book you referred to and which title was used for the song? In a version from 1923 in an Australian newspaper, The Daily News (Perth, WA), it is titled "Woad". Thank you. Nedrutland ( talk) 08:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

replied at Talk:National Anthem of the Ancient Britons/ SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ghulam Haider is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Haider until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Heliotom ( talk) 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Abdus Samad, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PRehse ( talk) 18:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, as the creator of Kamaluddin and Kamal ad-Din you may want to comment at Talk:Kamaluddin_(politician)#Requested_move_27_July_2018 where there is a requested move that proposes Kamaluddin (politician) → Kamaluddin. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Also most your talk page uses a funky font and I don't know why... — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Фaхpудин. Since you had some involvement with the Фaхpудин redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Nawab Afridi ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Being a moderator, you always checked my page List of Pakistani Peace Laureates and fixed the errors every time for which I was always thankful to you for your support and cooperation but today I just checked my page and have found some other moderator removing the descriptions and ruining my entire page. All my efforts and struggle have been ruined. reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Achaea ( talk) 08:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• SamuelTheGhost, I am responding to the post at the noticeboard mentioned above. You are edit warring to restore contested information about living persons, which is required to be discussed and consensus reached before publication. I have again removed your edits. I am not here to discuss the matter with you, I am here to warn you that this will not be tolerated. You will use the talk page to discuss a respectable way to include this information (if it is included at all) and will not restore it until consensus is reached, or you will be blocked from editing. Please also see the notice below.

Thank you. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I just found an old comment you made regarding perceptual learning and the Bates method: [52] It appears there has been some progress in regards to countering refractive errors via perceptual learning. [53] An optometry journal editorial from 2013 mentioned perceptual learning as a likely way to treat myopia, but mostly discounted it as a reason the Bates method might sometimes work. Belteshazzar ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, nice to hear from you. As I guess you know, I started editing on the Bates method many years ago, from May 2008 in fact. Eventually I decided that I had made all the contribution I could, and I moved on to other things. I'd actually forgotten about the perceptual learning article and I was interested to re-read it and to follow the links you've given above, so thank you for that. However I'm not inclined to get involved in this subject again for the time being. I wish you the best of luck with your contributions. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I feel like I've done all I can also, at least until a new source emerges. I guess I could work on Presbyopia a bit, but after what's happened at Bates method I'm hesitant. I'm sorry to say that I inadvertently got some of your work there torn down. Belteshazzar ( talk) 21:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It's important not to care too much. We do the best we can then let go. On Bates method, substantial improvement will only be possible if and when better sources emerge, as you've said. There are still large areas of WP where good work is accepted and valued. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 20:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Any thoughts on how this could have been seen as POV pushing? Belteshazzar ( talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Search for "Dead-end" in this version of the talk page. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

LOL. But I only removed the part which said it is a "frequent criticism", since there seems to be only one source which makes this point. No big deal either way, but I'm not sure how that could be seen as POV-pushing. Belteshazzar ( talk) 16:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No indeed. It's the "frequent criticism" which is POV-pushing. The whole of that sentence could be deleted, but in fact it's worse than that, since Alan M. MacRobert is just a writer about astrology and UFOs etc. and is not an expert on medical or vision matters, so the stated reference is not a WP:RS, so the whole paragraph should go. Don't expect all the other editors to agree, though. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

That point is often made in casual conversations, and I can understand citing whatever source you can find for it as long as it is framed as the author's opinion. It's far more troubling that the opening sentence calls the Bates method "ineffective" and cites Quackwatch. It looks like recent optometry sources which have addressed this take a somewhat more measured tone. Belteshazzar ( talk) 17:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

This all confirms my decision not to get involved in editing this article. Sorry. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I was going to say I hadn't expected you to, but clearly I was hoping you would. I think I now have a better argument against saying "ineffective", but I don't dare present it. I guess Wikipedia is not the place to continually refine one's arguments. Belteshazzar ( talk) 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

This might interest you. Belteshazzar ( talk) 23:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw you created this redirect first to a Syrian army officer of same name and then to a disambiguation page with a different spelling. I am using it for my article that I wrote about an Ex-Professor. If you have any objection then please do let me know. Thanks. Freoanlsji ( talk) 17:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for alerting me. The name Ali Haydar, variously transliterated, is commom, as you can see from the disambiguation page. The name on its own should not be used as title for the article on any particular individual unless that individual is more notable than alll the rest put together, which is not the case here. So your new article should be called somethihg like "Ali Haydar (radiologist)", then the disambiguation page skould be updated to include that entry. I hope this is clear. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Two new review articles might help to source and expand Pseudomyopia. [54] [55] PseudoReview ( talk) 08:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

[56] Do you know anything about E. F. Fincham? This ophthalmologist(?) appears to be cited in a few places, but I can't really seem to find anything about them. DefThree ( talk) 21:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello SamuelTheGhost! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply