User talk:Perceval/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Congrats on your adminship!

I knew it'd work out. Isaac Newton got featured as well! Drinks all 'round :) Borisblue 17:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Boris, I've got to thank you. If you hand't nominated me, I probably never would have gotten around to it. And you were right about my real world time constraints not being an overriding factor. I saw that Isaac Newton got featured--I think it's a great peice of work, and I was happy to have been able to contribute a few paragraphs. All the best! —thames 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulation from the Arctic. CambridgeBayWeather 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam template

Hi Thames. There is actually a debate currently going on the talk page and JuanMuslim had only reverted an addition of the article being questioned. I think you might have accidentally disregarded that it was another editor that had added that without an edit summary to begin with; Juan only reverted back. Just thought I'd inform you. Cheers, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi anonym, good to hear from you. The criticisms article has been discussed for inclusion or exclusion for much longer than the current debate, and has been on the template quite some time (it used to be Opposition to Islam, rather than the more balanced Criticism of Islam that it is now). I'm not terribly invested one way or the other as to whether it stays or goes, but I don't think things should be deleted without edit summaries. Since there is no talk page consensus, I put the template back the way it was before the current debate surfaced, which was with the criticisms article. If a talk page consensus is reached to delete it, by all means go ahead, but make sure you put in your edit summary "deleting article as per talk page consensus" or something similar. All the best. —thames 18:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

First, you're welcome :) Second, congratulations! I still have concerns about your ability to contribute as an admin, but I have no doubts you can be trusted with the priviledges of adminship. Best of luck with your PhD program. By the way, the photo on your user page is hysterical! A bunch of fumbling photographers madly trying to photograph a scantily clad woman like they've never seen the like before. It's also an interesting study of sorts in camera technology. Note how many of the photographers aren't actually taking a picture at the moment this image was taken, and are instead fumbling with some detail on their camera. --Durin 18:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finding the PhD application process to be a royal pain in the ass. Schools noted for good political science/international relations programs turn out not to even offer a PhD in the subject, instead offering Public Policy or Political Economy. Unbelievable.

That photo is one of my favorites of all the featured photos on wikipedia. I had never thought about it the way that you mention however. Now that I think about it, I'm consistently frustrated by my digital camera, because I can't take pictures fast enough in succesion. Setting up a shot with a manual camera, and having to adjust the frame speed, aperture, and focus must take forever in comparison though.

Speaking of the picture, my initial idea was to rig up some sort of image-switcher, so that every time the page was reloaded, a different photo would be shown. Since <script> tags are disallowed, I trolled around in the Template instructions, but couldn't find exactly what I was looking for. I could certainly set up a user-space template with say 6 or 7 inputs, and then put the template on my user page with the image names as the different inputs like so {{imagerotater|imageone.jpg|image2.jpg|imagetres.png|...}}, but there's seemingly no way to randomly choose an input when writing the template markup. Frustrating. But I'm happy with the picture I've got, so, I've got that going for me...

All the best. —thames 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I can't speak to the quality of the program (no idea if it's good or bad) but the department at my university has 49 faculty, and PhD programs (including one on public policy, but they seem to offer others as well). See [1]. --Durin 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• My congratulations as well. I hate to see what looks like a good candidate fail because of strange criteria for opposition. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats Dlyons493 Talk 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations! And your user page is fantastic BTW. the wub "?!" 23:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our appologies

Due to a minor mix-up you weren't actually promoted. I've taken care of it, my standard advice to new admins follows: You may wish to read the reading list and how-to guide at your convenience. Most sysop actions are reversible, the exceptions being history merges and deleting pages (but it's a good idea to be careful with all of them). Again, congrats on becoming an admin. Pakaran 01:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Small favor?

Thames, I like the way that you organized the Islam template. But I really really liked the green and white visual style. If possible can you keep this organization, but widen and keep the old visual style. :) Thank you --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I could certainly do that anonym. I have one question, which is how to link an article from the header, using the old color scheme. The template as it stands now is able to link Divisions of Islam and Aqidah as headers. If we go back to the old scheme, they will look terrible as blue/purple links against the dark green background. Is there an alternative? —thames 20:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you thames. I have no idea how to do that to the headers, though. Maybe I can try later. Oh and I would be delighted if you could vote at my Rfa (a very "controversial" one though). :) Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and congratulations on your Rfa! You will make an excellent admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I put the old color scheme back, which (in my opinion) makes the template take up more space, is is more visually jarring. But I'm an outlier here, so it's back the way it was. Divisions of Islam is back as a normal link, Aqidah is out since there's no good place to put it, unless it's a header. Thanks about my RFA--I hadn't really intended to become one, but once nominated by User:Borisblue things turned out pretty well. I'll take a look at what's going on over at your RFA. All the best. —thames 21:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haukur's RFA

Þakka þér fyrir að styðja framboðið mitt... Okay, I guess I shouldn't talk to you in my own language, the picture above notwithstanding. But thanks for supporting my RFA till the end. And Eric's picture on your user page is my very favorite of all the featured picture - I voted for it, back in the day :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "wikipedia is not a crystal ball"

Fair enough I don't want to reveal my source and you want to protect wikipedia. 8)

I suspect you're in for a surprise though.

grazon 21:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My office (in DC) would love to know. Are you in DC as well? —thames 20:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No but I know people who are.

grazon 21:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks for your support. I've now been made an administrator. I'll do my best not to let you down :) --Sherool (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism in the US

Hi - out of courtesy I wanted you to know I rm a sentence of yours to the talk page. Not looking for a fight, and I documented my reasons, but in my experience I always feel a bit angry when someone clips one of my edits. I'm sure we can work it out. Kaisershatner 15:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: Capitalist, Communist?

First of all I appreciate your contributions on various issues related to international politics, you have done quite a lot and it is valuable information. I appreciate your insightfulness for conceptualizing wikipedia in terms of economic theories.

Although I see your points made about Wikipedia being capitalist and can see where you are coming from, I was wondering, I always thought Wikipedia was in many ways to be more of a leftward leaning socialist verging towards communist sort of atmosphere. I mean there is no private ownership of the fruits of your labour, and since articles are public domain they are owned by 'the people' as a whole. Also, I was thinking that there is no incentive (in any sort of tangible substantial form) to write articles. Someone with years of education and experience will receive no more credit for the contribution of their expertise than an unskilled, uneducated 12 year old. Technically your are also not supposed to add original work which seems to go against capitalism.

But then maybe wiki is a hybrid of both in some way...

Hmmm....

But then again you probably have put more time into pondering this.

Arcan 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. What about an International Relations theory for Wikipedia... Realism maybe?? Each person seeks to maximise their own power or force of opinion but a balance of POV (Balance of Power...) seeks to maintain an NPOV ...or what about World Systems theory?? People in the Third world periphery cannot afford computers and internet connections to add their thoughts to wikipedia and cannot present their worldview and interests and therefore their socio-historical situation is exploited by the core of westerners to present information in the world from a Western perspective and culture?? .... Feminism ... can't think of an application there ....

Ah it's all a bit funny really...

In some ways, I wrote the little think-piece as a way to ruffle the feathers of the various socialists and communists that seem to flock here. Just because there is no private ownership of one's contributions does not mean they are owned by "the people". As far as I can tell, the licensing just means that they are freely editable and distributable--in essence, not owned by anyone. It certainly is a novel capitalist model, but I think it still can be classified as such. In my little essay, I did examine (briefly) the idea of wikipedia's "profit motive" and concluded that it was simply the enjoyment of seeing one of your favorite subjects well represented--that's why I do it anyway. And finally, the "problem of authority" that you mention doesn't really have any bearing on whether it's capitalist or not, since authority doesn't really have a place in capitalism per se. Young inexperienced startups regularly trounce the old blue chip companies. It is a lot of fun to think about though, and there are plenty of other theories trying to explain wikipedia and its success. In the end, I'm not sure that there is an existing theory that can fully explain wikipedia, since this is really quite a novel experiment. —thames 18:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah good points I can see that you are right that rather than being owned by everyone it's owned by no one. I have to agree with you that's it's quite fun ruffling the feathers of all the commies and lefties and even the right wingers too. But you are also right in that wikipedia really is a very novel concept. It is a bit beyond any of those theories isn't it - maybe you could start a new 'wikipedia' theory of the social sciences and humanities like international realtions etc...! Arcan 04:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Philosophy (navigation) RfC

We have a content dispute issue. Please comment on the talk page. This message is being sent out to everyone who didn't vote Delete in the last TfD of the template, ie: User:SimonP User:Jules.lt User:Pjacobi User:thames User:Michael User:Christopherparham User:FranksValli User:Silence User:Andymussell User:Moosh88 User:Rick Norwood User:Izehar

[edit] Urgent deletion issue

Hi, I created the Philosophy (navigation) template, and I voted for saving it too (as an IP). However, when I duplicated the template to adopt a new tag name, Infinity0 had a cow. We've been in an edit war since I started the template, and we escalated our battle to TfD, which was a big mistake, for now the whole project (both templates) is at risk because some people are voting to delete both. Meanwhile Infinity0 and I are voting to delete each other's TfD candidates, ironically pushing the delete votes for both templates into the majority. We need your help. Neither of us want both templates to die.

Here are the reasons to choose the "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" tag:

• Both templates are identical, as changes are ported after each round of disputes, to keep them that way. We've nearly come to a compromise on the few edits that we are still at odds over, but Infinity0 is one stubborn kid. Our competition has improved the template continuously, which is a good thing.
• The conversion of the old tag to the new tag is complete.
  • The new tag has placement in Wikipedia articles. It is hooked in to the top level of the Philosophy hierarchy, and then some.
  • The old tag has virtually no placement in any Wikipedia articles. It's discussion page link sits on a bunch of users' talk pages, and that's about it. And since I placed most of the old tags, it didn't seem out of place for me to upgrade them.
• Since the content of the templates are identical, and the fact that jousting will continue on whichever template wins, it makes sense to vote for the one that maintains the project's presence on Wikipedia.

Please vote to save the template: click here. For further discussions click here

Go for it! 03:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Late reply

Hi. Thanks for the note a couple of weeks back. It meant a lot to me because I'd been a fan of your work for a while, but never crossed paths with you. I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service until your post. It looks interesting and I hope to keep track of it. BTW, I'm encountering a lot of trouble at the moment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. If you have time, it'll be a lot of help if you can look at the AfD. Best regards, 172 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good to hear from you 172. I pitched in on the AfD discussion. Needless to say, let me know anytime if you need another critical eye in a discussion elsewhere. —thames 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Your comments noted an angle (the use of the term "modern day") that I hadn't even noted yet. 172 03:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Thames,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

k first of all i would like to thank you for changing the vandalism of Daron Malakian's page thanks Sumguy333 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem buddy. See you around!—thames 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F-bomb AfD

Thanks for the note. I'm beginning to think that the problem is not necessarily any particular AfD vote, but the entire system. The threshold for deletion increasingly strikes me as unreasonably high. At the moment it seems as if roughly the same group of POV-pushers is about to derail the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2 nomination. Sigh. 172 08:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright?

Had not seen your first warning. Was not aware of any problem since all original sources are mentioned with links to it. However, since referencing and mentioning the source is not sufficient I rewrote the article. --Nomen Nescio 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mercurino Gattinara.jpg - csd

I've put up your image for speedy deletion, because there's a version of it in the commons as Image:Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen 001.jpg. They are the same picture, and I have replaced the 2 references to it in wikipedia. However, there is a discrepancy. You've claimed that it's the only surviving portait of Mercurino Gattinara, however, the title of the work in the Commons is Porträt des Kanzlers Jehan Carondelet. This is from the Yorck Project, a branch of Directmedia Publishing. I have no idea who either of them are anyway, but if you know who the portrait is really of, then please clarify it. - Hahnchen 04:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the image at http://www.associazioneculturaledigattinara.it/mercurino/articolo1.html which (in Italian) says its the only picture of Gattinara left. I don't have an account at the Commons, but if you do, I'd appreciate you resolving this over there. Thanks for the heads up, and please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. —thames 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need more info on your old article

Hi. I noticed you have once started the Intelnews page. Going to develop it a bit, first of all, to remove some ambiguity. Is that a Ukraine-based agency, or a Ukraine-specialized institution elsewhere abroad? Would you provide me with some sources or links? Cause I've never heard of such Ukrainian agency. Thanks, Ukrained 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, if you run a Google search on Intelnews you'll find many references to it. It appears to be Kyiv based, although it may now be defunct. It's hard to find up-to-date information on. —thames 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UNIAN

Hi Thames. I don't agree with your latest revert in UNIAN. The passage you restored is definitely a promo stuff even if you didn't mean to when creating the page. You see, there are 3 main news agencies in Ukraine (including UNIAN). And we don't have pages on the other 2 agencies yet. So, with your passage restored, the unqualified reader may decide that those corporations you listed subscribe the UNIAN only. That's why the passage is POV until we create 2 agency pages more and list the clients for each :) I'm writing this again because you unfortunately haven't read the talk page before reverting.

Practically, I'm not happy about promoting UNIAN since it is in my opinion the most dirty and reckless agency. They protect their owners' business interests directly - by issuing false/disformed newscasts, repeating news to increase PR impact etc. That's not worth promoting on Wikipedia. And their record during the Orange Revolution is significatly less than clear.

I didn't re-revert you cause I wasn't not sure if I can revert an admin. However, this minor dispute is not resolved Ukrained 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the solution to the problem is not to remove content from the UNIAN article, but to reword the UNIAN article, and create articles for the other two agencies ASAP. If you can find a source on the questionable credibility of UNIAN, by all means include those concerns you've raised. But simply because those concerns exist is no reason to remove information on who UNIAN supplies content to. And for the record, you certainly can revert an admin, we're normal users just like everyone else. But in most cases changes should be agreed to on the talk page. And, of course, it's a bad idea to violate the 3RR guideline. —thames 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classic female blues

Just wanted to say thanks Thames for adding the photos/pics to the article I wrote on Classic Female Blues.

No problem. Thanks for uploading the great article. See you around. —thames 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IFD

I don't understand what the problem is with images in userboxes. If an image is already in use on wikipedia and is ok for the purpose of an article, why is using that same image in a userbox so problematic? I've been careful to use images already on the site, or (if an article lacked a photo) supplying one and using it too. Exceptions are pics that I don't intend to keep for long (photoshopped picture of Spock) or are made by me for the purpose of userboxes ("Stars and Swastikas") which other users are free to use (I've gotten a few requests by other contributors). If we could host a pic elsewhere and put an URL up on our Userpages it would save a lot of headaches all around. Isn't there a way this could be done? I'm still kinda new here and figuring things out.--Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I'm not much of a supporter of userboxes. What seemed like a relatively useful indication of a wikipedian's language skills (information that is quite relevant to this project) has mushroomed into something totally out of control and of nearly no value to the encyclopedia project. That said, an image that is hosted on wikipedia servers for the sole sake of userboxes declaring some sort of political orientation (whatever stars and swastikas happens to declare) is not really a justifiable use of wikipedia resources. We all just donated $300,000+ for wikipedia resources so that we can make a better encyclopedia. I don't think this image, which is not used in any wikipedia article, is of encyclopedic value, and I think it's legitimate to delete it. As far as I know, there is no way to display images hosted on outside servers. Please understand that I have no hard feelings, and that I think your userpage is quite entertaining. See you around. —thames 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Then, as you say, if an image IS already in use on Wikipedia it wouldn't be a problem? I've been having a debate lately with other contributors regarding this issue. I'll try to find a substitute for "Stars and Swastikas" among other images available onsite. But, according to Geni, that's not good enough. I've tried explaining that copyright law has extended and grown so strict in recent years that an image used anywhere on Wikipedia (on a Userpage, article, whatever) is pretty much at the mercy of whoever holds a copyright to that image. There isn't really a "safe" way to use an image. So, blocking users from using pics used elsewhere onsite offers no additional protection to Wikipedia and only serves as censorship of contributors. As long as the pic is used in an article, at least that gives some excuse for fair usage.

I happen to like checking out other folks' userboxes and userpages. It adds to the feeling that there is a community of real people on the other side of the computer, and that helps boost morale among us adding to the project.--Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If an image is in use in a wikipedia article (presumably because it adds to the reader's understanding of the relevant topic) then I have no problem with it at all. There are a lot of debates that go on about whether there should be "indecent" or "offensive" images on wikipedia. While I don't think we should go out of our way to be indecent, I do think that articles on certain topics are just going to have to be indecent or offensive (autofellatio had a big debate on this). As it stands, your stars and swastikas image isn't on wikipedia because it adds to the encyclopedia, it's on for personal vanity purposes. I don't like userboxes, as I think they're a waste, and as you know templates are a significant drain on the serves, but if they use images, I think they ought to use images that are already on wikipedia for encyclopedic purposes. You can likely imagine the incredible plethora of potential userboxes just waiting to be made. How many resources are we willing to devote to storing images for each of these vanity userboxes? And how much will this take away from the money, resources, processing power, speed, and storage space that wikipedia has? Since you image isn't used for an article's purposes it's my opinion that it ought to go.—thames 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacrosse

I really don't know how to work with him. See Talk:Socialist Party of America#Reversal of meaning for my own frustrating interaction with him. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been clumsy and don't always remember to use edit summaries I admit, but I don't see why that should interfere with my ability to edit, or to work with other users. Please allow me to edit the Neoconservatism page again, I will try to allay your concerns. And while your at it, please consider having the title Neoconservatism lead directly to that page with a link at the top to the disambiguation page. Thank you, and let me know how I can help move it along.

Jacrosse 16:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done the page move you requested, good idea. But, before I unprotect the page I'd like to see some discussion with the other editors on the talk page. I protected it to let everyone cool off for a little while. If you have proposed changes you can put them on the talk page using the {{editprotected}} template. —thames 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been participating on the talk page, I have been making an effort, but no one is responding to my queries, what more am I to do?!

Jacrosse 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

When I re-read Talk:Neoconservatism#My_Edits I see five editors trying to work on your edits and giving a number of diverse points. You responded to one of those points, the fair use issue, by saying that you personally know the author and that he probably wouldn't mind. I said it on the talk page, and I'll say it again here: you personal opinion on the liklihood of Mr. Raimondo being understanding about you inserting large blocks of his text into the article is insufficient to cover Wikipedia from legal liability in the event that your hunch turns out to be incorrect. Furthermore, you've ignored the various other issues that the five other editors have brought up. That certainly does not qualify as "making an effort". As a point of warning, administrators are currently discussing official Wikipedia policy on the repeated addition of copyright material to pages, and that such behavior would lead to a block on the offending user. It is in your interest to work with the other editors, rather than attracting the attention of administrators. —thames 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Thames. I'm writing to you because I noticed that you have previous experience with Jacrosse. I have been having a lot of trouble with him on two pages, French Turn and Max Shachtman. He inserts irrelevant material on neoconservatism on the French Turn page (the two things have at most an indirect relationship), and he removes large amounts of material on the Shachtman page while personally attacking me in the edit-summaries. Another editor and I have been asking him repeatedly to discuss things on the talk page and cite sources, but at best he gives curt/rude answers. I don't want some passive-aggressive online jousting match, which makes this extra annoying. I really think his behavior is a form of vandalism. Is there any way that you can help? Thanks. --metzerly 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a mediation case involving Jacrosse's edits to the Neoconservatism article. You might check that out and talk with the head of the mediation people, User:Essjay. I'm sorry i can't be more helpful, I'm on business travel in Paris right now and the french keyboards are driving me crazy.—thames 08:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get in touch with Essjay, as I've now requested mediation as well. Good luck with those European keyboards. I've had to deal with them myself - a very arduous experience. --metzerly 18:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. FYI, I've reported Jacrosse to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, citing primarily his removal of dispute tags. I'd appreciate any thoughts or recommendations that you have. --metzerly 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have now referred User:Jacrosse to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. Let me know if you would like to be a party. You can find the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jacrosse. If you wish to, please append to the "Statement by DuncanBCS" heading. We must keep our response to 500 words or less, or it may be removed without warning by the Committee clerks.

[edit] WP:3RR

Try not to forget about it. And so far consensus is 2/3 editors so much as I can tell. I won't report you but I do ask you self revert and work to atleast incorperate some of the changes suggested instead of just reverting. This is considered good wikipedia practice and polite, not just my request.--Tznkai 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem incorporating changes on the page. What I find very frustrating is when editors make drastic changes to a temaplte and then treat the objections of other editors flippantly and refuse to engage them in discussion on the talk page. You and JimWae seem to favor some very drastic changes. At least JimWae had the tact to put up a proposal on the talk page of the changes so that other editors could take a look and discuss the changes. You've done no such thing, despite requests from myself and the other editors to use the talk page. KHM03, A.S.Damick, Guðsþegn and myself like the old version for some pretty clear reasons, which we've outlined several times on the talk page. Your edits to the talk page consist of saying: I think this, and I'm going to do it. You can report me for reverting your changes, but any other administrator who takes a look at the record on the talk page is going to side against you because you seem to have no respect for the previous consensus and no desire to try and forge a new consensus to support your substantial changes. The talk page exists so that we don't have edit wars: let's use it and agree on something before making any further chages. —thames 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Several things. 1st you are not required to ask permission for substanial changes. 2nd you have been doing the VAST majority of both the talking and thw riting. Third you have showed little attempt to compromise or incorperate suggetions, Fourth, 3RR is an electric fence. There is no excuse for breaking it. If its so damned important that the old version be kept, SOMEONE ELSE will revert it. I'll give you 10 minutes to respond before I throw this up on WP:AN/3RR--Tznkai 01:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, there is no need to ask permission for major changes. In fact, you're specifically enjoined to Be bold! However, other editors have a say, just like you do. JimWae has discussed things on the talk page, Aquarius Rising has discussed things, but you have not. You've been flippant and unilateral, even when other editors have had reservations about major changes. The 3RR is certainly important, but so is the talk page, and civilly building consensus with other editors who have put a lot of time in on the template. If you want to be legalistic and browbeat other editors, by all means go to the administrator's noticeboard.—thames 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Christianity

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Voice. I'm an administrator too, and I'm familiar with the rule. If you'd like to take a look at Template talk:Christianity and [[2]] you'll get a good idea of what's been going on, and the numerous attempts I've made to get other editors to discuss their changes on the talk page to develop consensus. Also, see the discussion on this page just above this one. All the best.—thames 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems like he is discussing comprimises, and 4 reverts would work against obvious POV or vandalism, but not this. If he is the minority, then he can be out reverted (forced into 4+ reverts to continues) by others. If other where reverting him more I would like what I was seeing a little more. You are an admin, so I assume that it should be safe to assume this is not to much of an issue now, but I will keep an I on it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW. Wow, I cant believe that was a featured picture :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the discussion has really just gotten started. For a while the pattern was just to drop an assertion on the talk page (e.g. "I don't think we should include a section on the bible, i'm going to remove it") and make the change. Someone (usually me) would revert and say "see talk" and object to the change. Then a revert war would ensue with no further discussion. It's quite frustrating, and I spent a lot of time cajoling the various interested parties to discuss. It's finally happening, which is relieving. Thanks for keeping an eye out.

Btw, it's nice to see another Magic player around. I did a little work on Combo deck, but it could still use a thorough overhaul. I used to play ProsBloom back in the day. One of my favorites.—thames 02:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Seeing as you have simply carried on reverting despite warnings and a WP:AN/3 report, I've blocked you for 24 hours. There is no excuse for edit-warring from an admin. Note that, although you can, you should not unblock yourself. Thanks. -Splash^talk 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, that 5th revert did it. I told you I was keeping an eye on this. I support this block. DO NOT UNBLOCK yourself or this will go straight to Arbcom.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of unblocking myself. I do get upset when an editor disrespects other editors who have worked quite hard on a template by flippantly demanding major changes and refusing to discuss them or compromise on the talk page. Making changes during the middle of talk page discussion intended to reach consensus isn't editing in good faith, it's browbeating the other editors. I understand exactly why you've gone ahead with 3RR block, but I'd like you to please review the page history so that you can see what's been going on, and understand the concerns the editors have had about Tzn's edits among others.—thames 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block Statement

I was hesitant to block because all of the edits in question were minor and you are an admin, and I assumed that you were probably going to stop. However, I try to watch admins, and admins watch me to. Once, I semi-protected a page when vandalism/editing disputes I was involved in were somewhat vaguely mixed, and Splash removed the protection saying "Voice of All, you should not be protecting in what is basically a content dispute in an article you are involved in". I agreed and did not reinstate, as the vandalism was no longer the true issue. I wanted to stem the tide of policy violating cruft from entering the Sexual slang article from random IPs so I semi-protected. You, however, have ignored repeated warnings by other users. You disagreed with some template links, broke 3RR, ignored two warnings, and also fully-locked the article in a content dispute agaisnt a specific user. You abandoned good faith.

My point is that no admin is perfect, but lets try to listen to others when the notice things that were are doing and should be doing, instead of just arragantly brushing it off to revert and protect against policy.

Please take the time to cool of. Even if you were the best editor ever, you still will have disputes, and you have to deal with the user (who in the case was not a troll or vandal). You say you know the policy, well, in that case, make sure you always follow it, even if abusing you admin tools seems like a quick way to make the article better.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Why did you protect Template:Christianity? This is against policy!--Tznkai 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To let an edit war calm down. That's a valid reason for protection. It's been unprotected now anyway by another editor. Have at it.—thames 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Protecting an article you're involved in against policy is my point. For good reason I may add.--Tznkai 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is now clear admin abuse, I am so used to the admins being right, and the new user a troll that I was to slow to act at first. You might end up like SteveVertigo if you continue with this.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's abusive to ask editors to talk and develop consensus. I've been blocked and that's fine with me. I haven't unblocked myself or made any edits beyond talking on my own talk page. I've not been trolling, I've been civil throughout this entire process. I've been the one to enjoin other users to be civil and to use the talk page and to discuss with other editors. Those who persistently flout the concerns of others are left to do whatever they like, whereas I have been blocked because I wanted to discuss some very radical changes before they were accepted. This is admin abuse? No, this is just very strange.—thames 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All's point was that WP:PPol is clear that one should not protect a page that one is involved in editing because of the likelihood of conflict(s) of interest. -Splash^talk 03:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my mistake, and I admit that I messed up there.—thames 03:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On WP:AN/3 you wrote: "No, I don't think you are, and I've looked carefully through the history. Bear in mind, that it may be necessary to request full protection of the template while things are worked out. That's better than handing out a bunch of blocks. -Splashtalk 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)". Please understand that this was the intent of my protection of the template. I do understand that it was a conflict of interest, but it was not a bad faith protection. —thames 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice, I don't appreciate your Schadenfreude. Splash, Tznkai didn't violate 3RR because he never settled on one change to revert back to. He made slightly different edits each time. And each time I asked him to participate on the talk page. Instead of participating and discussing the other editor's reservations he simply made a new edit, saying "another try". It's not 3RR technically, but in spirit it is, and you'll see that if you compare the history and the talk page.

Yes, I've been through the history with a fine-toothed comb to make sure of that. There's a fuzzy line between trying different versions of a page and 'gaming' the rule, or breaking the 'spirit' of it — for a start, there would have to be bad-faith. I'm not sure that Tznkai's edits rise to that level. He knows how close he is, as I figure you've seen on WP:AN/3. -Splash^talk 03:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai took this path because he didn't want to have to discuss any changes with other editors, and that is bad-faith editing. It's manifestly clear that he wasn't trying different versions of the page in response to talk page feedback/concerns--he was simply going ahead with whatever he wanted to do. My question is: what does one do when an editor is extremely persistent in trying to get their way, without responding to requests to talk about the changes?

My irony has reason. Are the admins not usually the ones who block, not get blocked? Is the user complaining "admin abuse" not usually a troll? Besides, Tznkai was changing the edits and using decent edit summaries, while he should have used talk more to come up with a comprimise version, other than randomly trying combinations, I do not think that he was trying to "essentially revert", and I have seen this before, and blocked for it, trust me. I don't see him as gaming the system, although it was a bit close. But what is not fuzzy, is that your response, especially for an admin, was not justified.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sharing a laugh with Tznkai. Tznkai was mixing up the edits, but not in response to talk page concerns or feedback. He was just trying different things each time. His edit summaries didn't attempt to explain or justify the rather major changes, they were descriptive at best. It is because he did not respond to any of the objections on the talk page, other than to simply assert what he thought, that I believe he was essentially just reverting. What ought my response have been? Let him edit as he pleased, and continued to beg him to discuss on the talk page, when it was quite obvious that he would do no such thing? —thames 03:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are being overzealous. I remember when IPs where gaming the 3RR to add POV to Ted Kennedy. I always stuck to my guns and didn't violate 3RR. Because the IP and trolls edit's where so bad, so many other users reverted them out, and voted for consensus, that blocking and protection became a reasonable, non-unilateral possibility, as alloted by policy. That is what I expected you to do. You could have contacted other users or admins first.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One or the other of you should have requested a neutral admin to protect the templtae at WP:RFPP. That would almost certianly have yielded a full-protection, preventing Tnzkai from editing directly, and you from editing on pain of a painful thing. If you find that edit warring continues, protection by a neutral admin is the route you should take. -Splash^talk 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP should be used by admins when they are involved in the dispute. That is another good option. In the mean time, you should log off and rest, you are valuable contributor.

I see on you RfA by the nominator: "I've found Thames to be a very level-headed editor, I don't think he's ever been in a serious conflict despite the fact that he specializes in political philosophy articles that attract a lot of dispute. Take a look at his contribs, and you will find plenty of "rvv"s- articles on his watchlist apparently attract a lot of POV-pushing vandals and I think Thames will find it easier to deal with them once he has the tools."

Well, just dont got to far...

I've got to eat myself :)Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the RFPP route in the future. Thanks for the advice. I do have to admit that I find this all troubling, because on one level it means that the frequently cited criticism of wikipedia that it's those who are persistent and rule gamers who win out in the end has at least a measure of truth to it. We have Wikiquette guidelines like "Work toward agreement" and "Don't ignore questions: If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate" for a reason, but those seem much harder to enforce. Outside of either blocking a user entirely or blocking a page entirely, there seems like no recourse. Both of those seem like drastic measures.—thames 04:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thames. I have discussed my edits on the talk page. I have dropped my edits on the talk page, I have suggested I have discussed, informed, and so on. I have repeatedly avoided ever accusing you of bad faith, I have warned you *twice* about the 3RR and I have never used the article protection power to protect the article to "cool down" the edit war that evidently you and I were having. Each reversion I made was an attempt to incorperate or improve. The Talk page has several of my comments. In the applicable section, I may have as many as you. I am sick and tired of you constantly accusing me of noncooperative bad faith editing when I have attempted to compromise, discuss, and improve at every turn, and you have responded by reverting! I am not rule gaming, because I am seriously trying to improve the article. Not "win" anything. You have had plenty of opportunity to show you were willing to budge or accept change, or attempt compromise and I have not seen it. Maybe its there and I didn't because I'm too involved. Seriously though, this has got to stop.--Tznkai 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, I disagee with your assessment. We did have a discussion the first time around when you created an "important figures" subsection. We didn't exactly reach 100% agreement, but we talked about changes and incorporated some into the template. After that, any semblance of cooperation broke down. You used to the talk page to notify other users what you thought was best, and didn't respond to objections so much as dismiss them as irrelevant or simply ignore them. Each time you made another edit saying "another try", it was quite clearly unrelated in substance to the objections raised by editors on the talk page. It was simply a minor permutation of your first edit. This doesn't seem forthright to me. Finally, at the tail end of the edit conflict Aquarius began good discussion on the Trinity, wherein you and I basically ended up agreeing. I wish you had taken the same course with your other edits, because I don't think you and I are fated to disagree or conflict with one another. But I do get frustrated when someone isn't responsive to the concerns of myself or other editors. I understand that you are trying to improve the article--every editor is trying to improve the article. I never said it couldn't be improved upon. But I was upset with the manner in which you went about trying to improve the article--unilaterally, without consultation or attempt to build consensus when others objected. My reversions were an attempt to get you on the talk page--something you essentially: see here Template_talk:Christianity#More_changes. I raised a number of issues, but instead of responding to me and discussing them, you went ahead a re-edited the template in essentially the same configuration. It wasn't "another try", because your "try" had no relationship whatsoever to the concerns raised. I was wrong to let the edit conflict get the best of me, and I should have asked for an independent observer far earlier, but I think my efforts to get you to discuss on the talk page were well-motivated, and supported by standard wikipedia guidelines.—thames 16:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me try this again.

1. I edit
2. I frequently post on the talk page why I made these edits
3. You object
4. You revert with an edit summary such as "(rv, Tzinkai i think it's unjustified to remove a subsection on *the* christian text)" Which is not an explanation or a discussion but a flat out denial.
5. I try a different version involving diffrent changes or incorperating more of the old template
6. Go to step four.

Just because you object doesn't give you the right to revert. Especially when you the time between step 3 and four tends to be rather short.

Also. Please do not act as if you speak for the monothlithic consensus of the template. Others have left comments and they aren't blind agreements with you, they have thier own voice and opinions, sometimes agreeing ,sometimes disagreeing.--Tznkai 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah " (rv, it's absurd to have two links to the bible on the same template, "God the Holy Spirit" is not really common usage, "God the Son [Christ]" is extremely awkward--please propose changes on talk page)"

Immediatly after I fixed the double bible occurance. Didn't notice the trinity bungling I'm afraid. I am in fact responding to your edit summaries and your comments. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them outright.--Tznkai 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to pile on here, as I will leave it at this before you respond but [3] and [4] doesn't give enough time to bloody respond on the talk page!--Tznkai 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are overstating your participation on the talk page (step 2, above). I think we had fruitful cooperation in two places: 1) separating Jesus and Christ, 2) naming scheme in the Trinity subsection. Both times, it was because we discussed it on the talk page. Your other edits were not something that you discussed. You would post something on the talk page saying "I did this" but not saying why or responding to others' comments:

• "FYI, the denomination was moved above cath, orth, prod, not removed.--Tznkai 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)"
• "I'm gonna go ahead and clip this section out entirely and move Bible under Xian theology. I'd like the template to not be huge myself, and OT, NT, Etc is really nitty gritty.--Tznkai 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)"
• "Whee. Yes, I'm still trying to improve the template I moved Xian church under theology, broke salvation and grace to their own lines, and bolded Xian denoms inations over RCC Orthodox and Prodestantism, Bible is now OT NT and APoc.--Tznkai 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)"

Only now have you posted responses trying to justify these edits when questioned or objected to with reasoning. My principal frustration with your behavior was after a "rv, see talk" edit (Step 4, above) summary, you ignored the talk page, and did "another try" (Step 5, above) which had little relationship whatsoever with the objections raised on the talk page. This made me feel like you were ignoring [WP:EQ|Wikiquette]] guidelines like "Work toward agreement" and "Don't ignore questions: If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate". Finally, I did not claim to represent a monolithic consensus. My point all along has been that there was consensus for a good while, and the template was stable. There was no consensus on the new changes, and you did not put in a good faith effort to allay the concerns of other editors (myself included, although there were three others who voiced concern about edits by you and JimWae).—thames 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thames step 4 never should have happened! You need to give me more than three minutes to respond. Certainly more than three minutes for others to comment and concur or disagree with you. There was no consensus to revert my contributions either. If you want a good faith response, you have to give enough time for someone to respond, period! I can't good faith edit if you don't even give me time to edit. Exactly how is that building consensus?--Tznkai 17:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's quite an abnormal standard you're setting, saying that Step 4 never should happen. In fact, it happens all the time, throughout wikipedia, on nearly every article. Usually, when something gets reverted and taken to the talk page it stays there while editors hash out an agreement of some sort, providing reasoning, citing sources, showing google hits-counts, etc. Instead, you forged ahead making more edits, ignoring the talk page. You had all the time in the world to have a discussion on the talk page--saying that you had no time to respond is patent nonsense, because you never really responded at all. I might point out that you are only responding Template_talk:Christianity#More_changes now, when I have been blocked from editing, and thus cannot pariticipate in the discussion. And that's a shame.Thames 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. You don't revert and demand discussion. You demand discussion and you participate in discussion, and you are polite in doing so, and frequently offer compromise. The status quo is not a privledged position. If anything the spirit of wikipedia suggests that the newer version is privledge, but we can quibble that later. It remains that reverting is impolite and harmful. Incorperating the changes, giving time before reverting for response, etc. is all good wikipedia practice.--Tznkai 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well let us agree that we were both at fault: I should not have been so quick to revert and you should have discussed more on the talk page. I don't want any bad blood between us, as we are both admins and need to work on the same side. Do we have a deal? —thames 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright.--Tznkai 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we could work this out. That said, I'm going to lay off on the Xianity Template for a month or two (except for the usual vandal patrolling). I'll see you around. Thames 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Neconservatism

Hmmm, this kind of thing is always tricky, mainly due to the vagueness of "fair use". I am not a lawyer, but this much I do understand: that fair use provides a defence for quoting excerpted pieces of copyrighted work, for the purpose of criticism, commentary, scholarship, research etc, provided that you don't use any more copyrighted material than you must ("fair" cuts both ways) and that you actually are commenting on the text in question, rather than simply reproducing it. So the question seems to be "can we use less of the copyrighted work and still be able to make the commentary we do?": if we can, we must.

I figure this diff is typical of the sort of thing you are talking about? I don't see any particularly substantive commentary being added to that text. The section "Left-wing roots of Neoconservative organizations?" seems to have vastly more copyrighted text than commentary; I don't see how that can be likely fair use. It also smacks of original research in the bits that aren't copyright — there doesn't appear to be any reference saying that someone else has drawn these conclusions, other than the editor himself. I haven't read the rest of the article, but that section at least has serious problems. (To be honest with you, glancing at the rest of the article, it reads rather like a sociological work more than a tertiary source reporting what interpretations others have made of the material referenced.)

But anyway, your question was how to deal with it. Well, since you're involved in the article, and the questionable "fair use" insertions are not outright copyright infringement, the use of admin powers should be cleanly avoided and the 3RR observed (and reported for, if necessary). That leaves you two options. If there is a significant consensus among other editors on the article, it should be easily possible to revert the additions without needing to get close to the 3RR on the count of any of the agreeing editors. That's one way the rule works. Another route is RfC. Two ways there: if you think the editors behaviour is the major problem, which it probably isn't yet, then file a user-behaviour RfC detailing (succinctly) the behavioural problem. I presume in this case you would say he is ignoring the discussion, consensus and repeated inserting excessive fair-use material. It's for you to judge if it has reached problematic proportions. Or, if you think the problem is not yet clearly behavioural, then file an article content RfC and see if you can draw in experts on the topic of Neoconservatism to help thrash out the problem. A slightly unusual route, if you think the copyright issue to be first-and-foremost and fairly distinct from the rest, would be to make a note on WP:AN/I stating your fair use concerns on an example of a couple of diffs and asking for specific advice. Dispute resolution can be a long process, but beginning it gently is usually the least painful route. -Splash^talk 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Splash. I've gone the route of posting a fair use question to AN/I, since I think that is the most pressing issue, as it opens Wikipedia to potential legal liability. Thanks for taking a close look at the issue. See you around. —thames 14:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thames, I do apologise for the delay getting back to you. Your latest message passed me by when I was only looking at a diff of my talk page, and I've been watching the discussion abtou the copyright infringment part of WP:BP with interest as it applies directly to this case. I see you've blocked Jacrosse. Given the feedback you got on AN/I and th reasonable judgement you have and the repeated insertions and the lack of discussion or compromise, I think your block fully justified. Future, well-measured blocks relating to the same problem would also be justified. Obviously, blocks related to other aspects of the article might not be since there might be other conflict-of-interest issues there. -Splash^talk 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's alright, it's good to hear from you. Regarding the possible conflict of interest: that's why I tried to make it quite clear that the issue resulting in the block was the fair use and nothing else. The other content edits aren't a liability to Wikipedia, so they can be settled through the normal processes. All the best.—thames 08:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Kievan Rus

Hello, I removed your map from Kievan Rus, because I don't want that article to be turned into a playing ground for endless revert wars that plagued other related articles since Oct 2005. Firstly, the map uses un-historical Ukrainian toponyms, rather than Old East Slavic, which usually coincide with modern Russian and customary English usage. Secondly, the map shows the territory to the south of Kiev as the original land of Rus ca. 750, while: a) we have not a single source mentioning Rus at that period; b) there are no chronicles documenting the region in that period; 3) the map illustrates a fringe theory propagated by Boris Rybakov and modern Ukrainian nationalists with racist prejudices against Russia. If you had more expertise on the subject, you would see that the Rus are believed by mainstream historians to have been Scandinavians who originally settled near Staraya Russa. Please don't try to push nationalist mythology in Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding. --Ghirla | talk 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to push anything. I just used Google Image search for a map of Kievan Rus', since the article was missing a map, and it's quite hard to visualize without one. Perhaps you should make a proper map, since you're the expert. We have plently of free blank maps available on Wikipedia that you can use to draw a correct map. I don't appreciate your condescending tone ("If you had more expertise on the subject") or your assumption of bad faith on my part ("Please don't try to push nationalist mythology"). I'll freely admit I'm not an expert, but there's no need to snap at me. Please re-read Wikipedia:Civility.—thames 14:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ghirlo, I don't see any POV on that map. The region north of Black Sea were inhabited by East Slavic tribes (Tiverians, Ulichs) around 750. Also there is no excluding of modern Russian Fed. lands from Kievan Rus. Moreover, I think one of Bilibin's kitsch lubok pics is enough, we need a pic about ancient Rus architecture, the white-stoned Novgorod is perfect. I have to admit that Thames is right, this article desperately needs a map. If you can draw a better one, please do so, but until that happens, I think this map should stay. Voyevoda 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Int. Relations ===People (writers, etc.)===

I disagree with your rv and view that such a section, Int. Relations ===People (writers, etc.)===, might be too large & useless.

A list w/links to the top 20-30 examples of well-known writers on the subject -- Sassen, Kelsen, Nye, Keohane, Morgenthau, Montesquieu, Bodin, Grotius, Vattel, etc. -- would flesh out the article well. More than just the References, then: those are just a few intro. books to be read, and complete bibliographies of these authors would be prohibitive.

A list of famous figures provides an instant overview / frame of reference for the article's initial distinction that a "conceptual model" is being presented here. That modeling effort has a long history, and a list of the folks involved -- maybe with their dates included -- would indicate that.

Let me know if you agree/disagree: if you agree I'll be happy to assemble a starter-list.

--Kessler 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a first principle, I think it's always better to stick to text rather than lists. Lists are convenient and easy, and I've put them in articles many times myself. But, lists are also some of the most divisive subsections of articles, because there's rarely a well-defined bright-line which distinguishes who ought to be in and who oughn't to be in. As such, they grow monstrously and become filled with every non-notable web-pundit that POV users can push into the list. The international relations article is in reprehensible shape at the moment, but unfortunately I don't have the time nor the textbooks on hand to whip it into shape. My suggestion is: instead of making an edit-war-prone list, write a paragraph about each author and the importance of their writings under the history section of the article. That will better establish a threshold for notability, prevent idiotic additions from POV pushers, and provide more relevant information to the readers. Sound good?—thames 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comment on the anon

You mention a request to block. So far three ANI reports have gone nowhere. User:Bishonen has promised to take a look but has apparently been busy. I am not sure what process you are speaking of or whether you are talking about a unilateral block. In any case, more info can be found and further accessed via my user page as well as here. Thanks. --TJive 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism

You were right to scold me and another editor for a pissing match, but could you please examine recent edits on the page? Two editors with different viewpoints have been attempting to rewrite the text constructively, while one continues a revert war and personal attacks.--Cberlet 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had problems with Jacrosse in the past and blocked him for repeated, stubborn copyvio insertion. I'll do what I can, but as I've also been quite involved in editing the Neoconservatism article content, some might say I have a conflict of interest in exercising administrative powers. An different administrator might be able to help more decisively.—thames 16:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Int'l Relations articles

Good work, functionalism, neo-functionalism, geopolitik, it's all there. All we need is an image like the deleted one at Geopolitics (Heartland, Rimland...) and something about the aggresive Russian version of Neo-realism. Oh, and check this out. Mitteleuropa also needs work (Großraum, Nauman...). Ksenon 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got an edition of Mackinder's writings, featuring several of the maps. It's produced by the National Defense University, and thus may be in the public domain. I'll check on that. IMHO the Geopolitics article is a travesty, and really covers mostly Geostrategy, while ignoring the wider focuses of Geopolitics. I don't know enough about Russian neo-realism in order to write the article, but I must say I'm quite interested.—thames 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks... and help

Thanks Thames for your edit at the Opus Dei page. That was a nice one. I also need some help, and especially after I saw your User Page, I'm sure you are the right person to ask help from.

You can find the problem where I need some help here: NPOV policy on representation, the meaning of the conjunction "or"

I think those who answered me are not official administrators. And nobody has been able to answer my latest question on how my interpretation links up with NOR -- as these policies are supposed to be mutually linked. (I also posted this in the village pump and there was no response from any official. [5] Same thing happened at the help page.

Anyway, I hope you can do something. Thanks. Lafem 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism (again)

Chip Berlet has been constantly vandalizing the text that we finally agreed to, can you please make some intervention to the effect of making that clear?--Jacrosse 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We do need help over there, but I'm not sure exactly what is going on. From what I can tell, there seems to be an ongoing dispute over the neutrality and accuracy of one particular section. When asked to discuss this section, Jacrosse does not appear willing to do so. He also keeps polemicizing against Cberlet and evading substantive discussion. This is one man's opinion, of course, and I may be wrong; but that, I suppose, is precisely why you may be of service over on Talk:Neoconservatism. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 01:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to request mediation. I thought you would want to know this. Hydriotaphia 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request is here. Hydriotaphia 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your latest comment—I hope you don't think I've been edit-warring, baiting, and flaming. If I have, please tell me where and when I did so. Hydriotaphia 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's between Jacrosse and Cberlet.—thames 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well-Tempered Clavier

Hello Thames,

Regarding your tagging of the "well-tempered clavier" article as needing editing from someone who knows the topic:

It is clear to me that the article has been vandalized several times on and following February 9th 2006. The versions previous to that are well-balanced enough and fair to the topic, and were apparently written by people interested in fairness. But, in the changes that were made by the two anonymous users on the 9th and 10th February, there is serious misrepresentation of my published academic research in this topic (including at least one outright lie about the process of my research), and the promotion of their own agendas. Everything in that part of the article since then has been a mess...and obviously designed to make me look bad in public, personally.

Is there a way to roll it back to the 8 February version for a fresh start forward?

Thanks,

Dr Bradley Lehman

I don't really know much one way or the other. It just looked atrocious. I've rolled it back to the Feb 8th version while preserving some of the minor subsequent changes. It will be up to you and some of the other editors to hash it out on the talk page. For future reference, if you wish to revert the changes of an anon editor who you believe has changed the article in bad faith, you can follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Revert. Remember, this is only to be used for changes that are made in bad faith, all other changes must be worked on with the other editors, aiming for compromise and consensus reached on the article's talk page. —thames 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

Hi Thames! Thanks for your cheering support in my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial comma

Hi, thanks for that comment. Darn, I hate the serial comma formally (like on Wikipedia) but sometimes use it in my own personal writing. PS - nice user page! Thanks again, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Results and Thanks

Perceval/Archive2, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Oswald_Spengler_(old).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oswald_Spengler_(old).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Oswald_Spengler_professor.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Oswald_Spengler_professor.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)