User talk:Simonides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Simonides is no longer a Wikipedia editor.

L'année dernière
Enlarge
L'année dernière

Hello, feel free to address any of my contributions or emendations here.

Contents

[edit] Hello

Hello, Simonides, and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you: + Just a quick note--usually, on talk pages, add new entries to the bottom. It's less confusing for the recipient. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Simonides 17:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Simonides, and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Regarding those pages with the redirect. The standard is to place the article as the person's real name, with a redirect from the non-accented, so English users can find it. Burgundavia 05:19, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, it was meant to be the other way round, please see the message I posted on your talk page. Simonides 05:20, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Lit

Re your remarks at History of literature, a WikiProject sounds good. Anything that will get that beast of an article fleshed out and beaten into shape. :-) I struggled with it for weeks, finally posted my additions in the hopes that it would inspire others to cover the fields I knew less well, and despaired when no one did. Ah well. :-) Once the literature project is up, I'll take a look at the page, and join, no doubt. :-) Medieval literature has been my baby for a long time, and I'd like History of literature to be at least as good. Thanks for leading the way on this! Jwrosenzweig 16:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Ah, finally, a response to all my requests on the lit and wikiproject threads! I looked at your article on Medvl. Lit., it's very good. Jwrosenzweig, I would like to assemble a large group of users to look into all the notable writers from all periods in every country; I have a huge list of writers with me that I was trying to make an "index" of, in the past couple of days, before I discovered that there already are such lists! But they are scattered, highly disorganized and very incomplete. So I would like help with sorting the data even before we create articles. The other major problem, I've discovered, is that there are Wikiprojects AND there are categories, and different people take care of these things, so it makes things additionally confusing. Another good reason to assemble everyone interested in literature in the Wikiproject and have them sort out the categories in a sensible manner. Hope to hear from you soon. -- Simonides 20:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] comment

Hi again, just noticed your comment on the Village Pump apropos of the situation over the Israeli-Palestine media article. To reiterate what others have said, administrators (of which I am one) have no particular authority for resolving conflicts; essentially we are just one voice among many (but we can intervene in conflicts in which we have not earlier been involved by protecting war-torn pages). If you find yourself in a conflict over an article, however obscure the topic, you needn't feel as though you are the only one defending it (a natural instinct; we have all been there). In such cases, drop a note on the Talk page of someone you consider sympathetic and ask them to take a look. Although the final decision is yours, the current thinking tends to frown upon making more than three reverts a day to a given article; if you get to that point, it is defintely time to call in others. Alternatively, you can request page protection on Wikipedia:Protected page. The version protected is not always the "right" one but that is just a temporary situation, and it is better than an extended edit war. It is good to see someone else interested in Middle East topics; you probably realize already it is a contentious area (no surprise), but just keep in mind that on Wikipedia the rational, objective point-of-view, insofar as its exists, eventually prevails over fanaticism in the end. All the best, -- 18:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, Viajero! -- Simonides 20:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprojects

If you have no objections, or some reasons why not, I would like to split the WikiProject Mass Market and Genre Fiction you added in two: WikiProject Mass Market and Wikiproject Genre Fiction, with both of them as direct descendants of WikiProject Books. I know from experience with science fiction that genre fiction can be a monster, even when the genre is not fantasy, where truly there be real monsters. Also I know that there is science fiction which is straight genre and mass market and other science fiction which is genre but not mass market, and still other like the works of Jules Verne or HG Wells which is canonical. Splitting the genre fiction from the mass market fiction makes regroupings easier afterwards.

Finally I would like to eliminate the intermediary WikiProject Miscellaneous Prose - Criticism, Letters, Memoirs etc., so that the two others you have placed as its descendants (WikiProject Fictional Series and WikiProject Critical Theory) become direct descendants of WikiProject Books. In a subject classification system like the Library of Congress classification there is some sense in making "miscellaneous" categories because they give more power to the cataloguing librarians charged with attributing them to books and after that to the reference librarians helping users find books. But Wikipedia does not have huge permanent staffs. We need something light, with as a flat a classification as possible.

For months now, right after having set up Wikiproject books along with others whose names you see there, I have been sifting though all the new articles every day, looking for book articles, placing basic bibliographical info (author and title are usually there and place of publication, editor and correct date are often missing and ISBN is missing more than half the time) and placing an entry for the book in List of books by title. I have also put all the pages of the list of books by title on my watchlist. I did this to get an idea of what kind of "movement" there was in book articles, and also to see how much work it would mean to use a very simple variation of the ISBD as the basics for a minimalist book template. It turns out that there are not that many book articles coming in: Barely 2 or 3 per day on average. It turns out also that just getting and placing minimalist bibliographical elements and then putting the relevant entries to the articles in the List of books by title takes a lot more time than I thought it would! AlainV 03:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alain - you are welcome to rename the Mass Market/Genre Fiction project, but I prefer you make it one project rather than two. Doubtless some works among the latter are canonical, and there will be some overlap, but I just want to be able to distinguish between someone like H G Wells or Jules Verne (classic/canonical) and your average mass-market sci-fi; similarly there are erotic, even pornographic writers like de Sade, and then there is your usual soft porn title, or love stories vs. Mills & Boon - I think one category is more generous and would avoid future contention between what exactly is Mass Market, and what Genre, since the majority of titles that fit into one group will fit into the other. The Fictional Series is actually a descendant of the Mass Market/ Genre thing; not a descendant of Miscellaneous Prose (please see Catalogue). You see, I don't know whether they qualify more for the Genre side or the Mass Market side, they would easily fall into both. As for Critical Theory, it is a descendant of Miscellaneous Prose. I have a reason for keeping Miscellaneous Prose - there are all kinds of classic works, such as Montaigne's Essays, which are neither fiction nor typical criticism or philosophy. Similarly there are many famous bodies of work - criticism, letters, memoirs, etc which are also famous literature but do not have anything in common except that they are "classic." Since a great deal of Critical Theory also refers to literature, I thought I would keep it under Miscellaneous Prose (it is also classified under Philosophy, and people are already working on it.) Please do not try to attach ISBNs to bibliographies - I am writing up my user page now and will explain why there. Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon! -- Simonides 04:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Please don't engage in big projects like refactoring and rearraging central Philosophy articles if you don't know what you are doing. Copy-pasting without even stating in the edit summary from where you are pasting is really destructive, and destroys attribution. As you yourself noted, the majority of the article content was relevant to the new title, and therefore the article should be moved, if at all. ✏ Sverdrup 09:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1) I know what I am doing, thank you very much. 2) I didn't state the move in the edit summary, but I did post a comment to the Talk page of the article, which you probably failed to notice. It was read by two of the editors who have been contributing to the article recently. They did not object to leaving the discussion where it was. They were both fine with the copy and paste. 3) I have already explained my Move feature doesn't work. If you were concerned about the attribution you could have posted a note on the Talk page, instead of reverting the article without understanding what you were doing. I suppose it is the lack of proper formatting that bothers you; I shall pay more attention in the future, but in the meanwhile I would recommend you try to discuss an issue before rushing into it and causing a confrontation. -- Simonides 10:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree on your solution here, but as I have no time or desire to battle for my opinion, I have atleast reverted your changes, deleted the pages and done proper moves, to return everything like you wanted it. ✏ Sverdrup 13:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ISBNs

Simonides, I feel only a little further on in an attempt to make sense of the "Further reading" etc issue. (For me, a suggested bibliography at the end of a humanities article is a completely different animal to a list of references or sources from which the information is derived.) But I am a belated convert to your no ISBN policy. I agree, they only refer to one out of dozens, even hundreds, of editions; they are language and country specific, and serve to mislead. Let us spread the word. I'd appreciate your opinion on my view that suggested/further reading (whatever we call it) is a different matter to references or sources. Djnjwd 22:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate greatly the recognition by the two of you that an ISBN can be a very misleading ID number. I have spent a good part of the last 20 years explaining to well meaning intellectuals that there is no sense in using an ISBN number for putting books in order in any way (wether they are on paper or digital) for all the reasons you have given and many more. Library catalogs have traditionally omitted ISBNs even in the main entry for a particular book. All librairies had lists of these these ISBNs since they needed them to order books, but they would always keep them in the internal records, never to be seen by most users.

But Wikipedia is not a library catalog. The users and/or the Wiki community want ISBNs in the book articles. In fact they have set up a very sophisticated system which recognizes ISBN numbers, when they are presented properly (it does not pick them up if there is something between the letters ISBN and the number, for instance) and places a link to a page leading to an astonishing variety of buying options or just occasions to go to commercial pages to get more info on a book. Because of the Web the ISBNs have become a gate to more information on a given edition of a book, something they were not before.

You also have to consider that the big online library catalogs have, gradually started putting ISBNs in the "advanced" optional views or "detailed" views of a given book. Take a look at the "Full record" option of the Library of Congress catalog, for instance. Yes, they are still concerned about presenting the user with too much misleading information, but they do not hide it totally anymore.

So, the question is not wether to put ISBNs or not, but how to put them, and where. And, perhaps, what kind of warnings to place and where and how to do so. For the last months (as I sifted through incoming articles and fetched bibliographical info)(which was more than the ISBN by the way) I have been mulling the idea of an article explaining the difference between an ISBN and the ISBD, another explaining the difference between the ISBD and the scholarly bibliographical style germane to an "end-of-article-list-of-references" and others perhaps. But there should be more than that, since the ISBN is and always will be misleading. We cannot make it disappear and sweep it under a digital rug.

Exactly! Where indeed. Tell people *where* to put ISBNs (I believe the right place would be in a book-template table, including other front-matter details as well) and some brave soul will go update all 10,000 book pages one weekend. +sj+ 21:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Once again, if we do include ISBNs we have to agree on how many should be included and what they should refer to - ie latest paperback, first hardcover edition, etc. Also, including ISBNs ignores the fact that ISBNs were only introduced in 1970 - you would still need a bibliographic record for books published before that which do not have an ISBN! -- Simonides 12:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note that dealing with the ISBN issue does not settle all other bibliographical description issues. I do not agree with the proposition by Simonides (although I admire its brevity: This is ,in my opinion, the right "slim" direction to take for a "minimalist" option), since it lacks certain elements (such as place of publication) and is subject to too many conflicting interpretations but this should be dealt with elsewhere. AlainV 03:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for the thoughtful responses. Alain, yes, I am suggesting a quick approach for editors. It is already hard to agree on a citation/ other standard, and not even common ideas on the general format of a biographical article reach much consensus here, so I am skeptical about asking all users to adopt a single standard that may also be very time-consuming when a whole category needs to be re-edited. If you want to include ISBNs, then you would have to create standards for those too: ie whether it should be a paperback title, only those with US copyright etc, and accusations of favouritism (for a publisher, a country, etc.) might also crop up . So it opens up a whole new bag of entanglements that, in my opinion, are best avoided.
Djnjwd - I was not thinking of citations and references, and I agree they are quite different from a Further Reading section. A bibliography would typically encompass both, though, of course, it is different from actual footnotes, references etc. In my opinion the articles should do away with one section or another, because appending too many sections after the main content is tiresome and may discourage a casual reader from actually looking at them; the question is how one ought to go about it (suggestions welcome.) -- Simonides 03:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverts

Consider this a friendly warning against further reverting my contributions that don't suit your POV. You are new here, so I figured you deserve some slack while learning the rules. Please don't abuse it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humus, you are the most asinine poster I have met so far on Wikipedia, and to be certified such within a week of exposure is not exactly a compliment. If you can't control yourself from starting a new, rambunctious and prejudiced edit war every day, you will get all the reverts, edits, and even abuse that you deserve. Now keep off my user page, and go dribble your self-diagnosed victimhood somewhere else. -- Simonides 13:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
FYI, this is a public page. [1] ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for dropping by

Simonides -- thanks for the pointer list. I can already see a few tweaks I should make.

[edit] Requesting comment on RK

I see that you are requesting comment regarding User:RK. Because we have an archived discussion about RK, it was necessary to rename your listing. I have provided a new subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2, and copied in the template for you. Please fill it out and have it certified within the next 48 hours, or it will be deleted. I also rewrote the listing for Talk:Anti-Semitism to present the dispute in a more neutral fashion. I hope using the process will assist you in resolving this dispute. --Michael Snow 21:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Translators

Yes, I am working on many things, one of them being of course adding basic bibliographical info to all articles that pop up, dealing with a given book, (and of course seeing to it that they have an entry in the list of books by title) and another being writing a coherent and concise (the hardest part)answer to what you perceive to be the problems with ISBNs and biblographical descriptions. There is one thing which I could do for the list of translators: placing in an alphabetical order the works translated (unless you have some other form of order in preparation), since right now they are in a jumble. AlainV 03:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alain, thank you for the quick reply. I dídn't understand what you mean - do you plan to make a bibliography for each translator (too much work!) or simply order a list of major works that have been attempted by numerous translators, which is the system I am following now? My list of works is rather loosely chronological, and unfortunately focuses heavily on English language translators (since they're the ones I know best.) If you know famous translators from other languages, you are welcome to add their names to the list or to the Talk page, from where I shall order and add them later. -- Simonides 05:07, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh my! Now that you point it out I do see a chronological order between 1.1 and 1.25. But it is far from evident for those who are only a little familiar with philosophy. I have only had 4 semesters of courses on it. And then it all falls down after 1.25! You should really place some dates (you choose which,since you started the list) in there or some other way of indicating there is this logical chrono order. Everywhere on Wikipedia you will see advice (from the founders and the majority of editors) to be bold in editing. I cannot bring myself to do this so I inquired first. Otherwise I would have re-ordered your chronological list (not knowing it was one) in alphabetical order from B to V, with translators of Borges first and translators of Virgil last.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Bear in mind that others who come along _will_ be bold and they will not ask you for your advice before ordering your entire article, if your chronological order is not made clear. And this will be done repeatedly.

Unfortunately, apart from the excellent Cecil Parrot (who translated The Good Soldier Svejk Into English) and the marvelous Charles Baudelaire (who translated the works of Edgar Allan Poe into French) I only know some mediocre or even infamous translators, and do not wish to say anything bad about them even if they deserve it sometimes. AlainV 00:35, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Hi, I listed another anti-Palestinian diatribe disguised as an enclopedia article, PLO_and_Hamas, on VfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PLO_and_Hamas. It is a little dismaying to see individuals voting to keep who do not otherwise involved themselves in the subject matter, but as you may have already noticed there is a strong culture here of what has been dubbed "anti-deletionism", iow, keeping everything. At this point, the response is fairly predicatable, but the VfD process is useful anyway for turning the spotlight on some of this stuff. Please vote, and after five days, if there is no concensus to delete, we will go in and clean the thing up. -- Viajero 10:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In the News

The News section suffers from lack of good contributed content, not from actie bias! Please add articles on {foreign crownings, major ecological, political, and spiritual events, and more} to Current events, make suggestions on the ITN-Template talk page, and keep adding good entries to the In the News section! I like the ones you started with. +sj+ 13:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] WHEELER complaint

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER I need one (or two?) people to certify the complaint. If you can attempt to resolve the dispute or intervene on Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and then document that would be helpfulAndyL 03:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd again

Please see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- Viajero 23:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article on anti-Semitism

You may be being a bit zealous in your pursuit of (?) in the anti-Semitism article; Zealotry has a way of being polarizing. Its just my perception based on a quick look, but, IMHE, I have developed a way of telling these things about controversial articles. -Stevertigo 04:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Presumptuousness can be a bit polarising too. Why don't you spend some time reading the Talk page and think it over, instead of airing preconceptions? It may have the double advantage of clarifying matters, and your opinion. -- Simonides 05:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Simonides, for a more intelligent appraisal of the situation, please see the note Danny just left on the Talk page of user:Zero0000. -- Viajero 23:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Steve, Danny's note only says he wants to stay away from these issues; I'm aware of that and it is his decision, a practical one, and I do respect it, but I don't see how it amounts to "a far more intelligent appraisal." Perhaps it's an appraisal for you - and accordingly, perhaps, we should sit around on our hands while the near-fundamentalist characters go about persistently turning articles into propaganda, lest our defense of NPOV be smeared as "zealotry" by people who haven't even followed the discussions. If that is your best suggestion I think I'll pass. -- Simonides 08:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it was me not Steve who left that last comment. I think you misunderstood it. I referred you to it because in contrast to Steve's presumptious, idealistic, and uninformed meddling, Danny's hard-headed, worldly appraisal was refreshing. However, I profoundly regret and consider it a major tragedy that someone as well-informed on the subject matter as Danny has withdrawn from it. I am certainly not advocating that you (or I) do likewise. -- Viajero 08:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the misunderstanding, Viajero. It was initially unsigned and I thought Steve replied. Anyway, he is back on Talk:Anti-Semitism being a shepherd for us lost souls. -- Simonides 22:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx!

Thank you for editing the article.By the way what do you think of his work?--Goldie C.K. 10:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome Goldie. Actually, I know very little of his work, though I enjoyed the story I read; he is not well known among English speakers and someone I know told me about him, which is how I got around to keeping an eye on the article about him :). -- Simonides 11:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] heads up

Hi, please see this message on the wiki-en mailinglist: [2]. You might consider joining [3] and giving your side of the story. -- Viajero 05:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks a lot for the notice - sent a reply, looks awful, but it's something. I'm not sure I want to keep up with every lie and absurdity that guy's going to post. -- Simonides 07:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok, it was a little heated, but never mind; it is important that your voice is heard, and you did well to supply links so people can judge for themselves. Take care, -- Viajero 07:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PS you will probably now receive a pious sermon from list administrator Ed Poor on personal attacks/brotherly love etc etc etc [yawn] -- Viajero 08:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oops, I replied before I saw your message. Anyway, I'm off for now - please send a note if I can help with anything. Cheers! -- Simonides 15:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] my user page

hi, i noticed you made a minor edit to my user page. that's fine, i was just wanting to know what exactly you did, because I can't really tell. thanks. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain, blankfaze, Angela moved Isaak Babel to Isaac Babel at my request, since the latter spelling is more in use, and I went about making corrections on all the "What Links Here" pages. -- Simonides 19:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ohh. No wonder I couldn't tell. Well, thanks, then! blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophes

I think your take on world history is close to the truth; yet the content of the philosophy article was only slightly changed from the earlier to the later version. What you were most keen on, and what others are most annoyed by, is the connotations of the phrases used; and what is proper depends in large part on whether you find the decline of various non-western philosophies in modern academia "natural" or "imposed".

If you want to make the nonstandard (but perhaps very true) claim that it was mainly imposed for various outside reasons, you have to list a few reasons, and do so as politely and as inoffensively as possible; it is never possible to make unusual and unexpected statements as brashly and as carelessly as one can make standard, accepted statements... many who quickly read your changes will assume you are pushing a private and unsubstantiated POV.

In short, to make unusual improvements to articles can be much more time consuming than making standard improvements. (In particular, No Original Research means you have fewer relevant sources to track down, refer to, and cite!) +sj+ 01:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I'll remember that. -- Simonides 22:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] À la recherche du temps perdu

Why did you move À la recherche du temps perdu? There was a discussion on naming on the Talk page there, which concluded that that was the best location. Markalexander100 07:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark, it is general Wikipedia practice to use the most common translated title when it exists. In Search of Lost Time is the current title for both the Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright translation and the Penguin translation, the two most common sets in print. I saw the the discussion just now, but I think the pages should be moved anyway to retain consistency, though I don't find it fun to correct a dozen or two redirects, which I am doing now. -- Simonides 07:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please don't "correct" the redirects. If you think that the page should be moved, despite what everyone else has agreed, you should discuss it on the Talk page first. Markalexander100 07:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark, I didn't check the Talk page and didn't realise there was already a discussion, and I shall post a note there, but I have already corrected a very large number of redirects and am almost finished. Please do not revert these changes, if that is what you intend to do. -- Simonides 07:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything until everyone has had a chance to talk about it. ;-o Markalexander100 07:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Simonides, hi, it's Quadell. I wanted to talk about the best way to procede on the anti-Semitism page. Let me quote you here:

I believe many of us are waiting to make "small changes" to the article. However, the neutrality of numerous contributors to this page is under question and on several occasions - you may know since you have been reading the Talk pages - the "facts" have been presented in such a manner that they only consolidate one POV without making room for adequate historical/ statistical/ critical background (cf. the EUMC report on the rise of anti-Semitism; when I added the Pew report and the rise of Islamophobia report I was called an "anti-Semite" by RK, which began my monitoring of this page and the arguments which have led to the request for mediation.)

I completely agree. There are many energetic contributors that are more interested in slanting the article their way than in acheiving a NPOV. There are juvenile users who resort to name-calling when people make worthy edits. There are even some who are ignoring mediation requests. Arbitration seems unavoidable in these cases, sadly.

My suggestion was that we all discuss changes on Talk pages before they are added to the article, but since most contributors (that have been invited to mediation) refuse to do so, I prefer to keep the article protected, to prevent it becoming POV junk.

The trouble is, keeping an article indefinitely protected is not an acceptable solution. I'm sure you've read Wikipedia:Protection policy. It says that "temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long", and other users' pig-headedness isn't a good enough reason to leave it protected. If other users are abusive, or refuse to participate in mediation, or repeatedly revert good info without comment, then arbitration is the right procedure. The best way to fight POV junk is diligence. (And I'll help you in that.) But not indefinite protection. Quadell (talk) 12:54, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Quadell, I am not sure how to respond to your suggestion. I do appreciate your level-headedness, but I previously requested advice on the article from other sysops and the protection + mediation request has been the result. Unprotection may result not only in conflict with other users, but with other sysops, so I would rather wait to hear from the mediation committee. If you want to speed up the process, please speak to one of them to find out what is going on. -- Simonides 22:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 209.135.35.83

Hi, I listed User:209.135.35.83 on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; he has been a royal PITA for many months now. Care to add anything? -- Viajero 16:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf criers

Simonides, please do not delete things from anti-Semitism which other contributors think need to mentioned there, such as the so-called "blood libel". I'd like you to cooperate with other editors of the article. --Uncle Ed 20:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed, is it really so difficult for you to read, think over and comprehend that I have removed material only after providing reasons and that others (to whom no comment has been addressed) have engaged in more deletion and excessive reverts than I have, often without explanation? I can understand that prejudice cripples judgement, but I wonder why you persist in it anyway. -- Simonides 06:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, please let others edit philosophy without your reverting it - that's why we are all here, and you never know, someone might improve on your work. Banno 10:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Do consider your own advice as the article progresses. -- Simonides 10:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I’ll try. You have started to mark all your edits as minor. If you do this, the significance of the M will be lost. Would you mind only using M for spelling and grammar? Thanks. Banno 21:48, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

They are minor edits in that they only extend the debate you refuse to engage in; there are no significant changes to the article otherwise. -- Simonides 21:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I’m flattered that you have changed the meaning of minor in my honour, but I haven’t refused to engage in debate. What would you like to talk about? Banno 11:48, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
You can begin by answering each of my responses on the Talk page. -- Simonides 21:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But I have answered the ones that were relevant or interesting. Do we have to respond to your every word? And sometimes I do other things besides edit Wiki – you know, eat, work, sleep - it’s called having a life. Banno 21:58, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! For those of us who got there a while ago, having a life is not an excuse to make edits at random. You may have responded to objections that were interesting to you, but you discussed very little; as in the case of the "in the West" phrase, you simply repeated your ignorant pronouncements after reverting changes you were requested not to touch. -- Simonides 22:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Henri Cartier-Bresson

Do you have reliable information allowing to resolve the dispute concerning HCB's date of death? See Talk:Henri Cartier-Bresson. - Karl Stas 08:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Western philosophy

Hello. I moved history of Western Philosophy, with a capital "P", to history of Western philosophy, with a lower-case "p". Generally, Wikipedia article titles don't capitalized words just because they're in the title; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I noticed that after you created that page, you linked a lot of pages to it in which you listed links to things like Buddhist Philosophy (which had to be directed to a page with the lower-case "p" in the title). I think you've been using using too many capitals. Michael Hardy 22:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Library lists

You make some good points, but the way you do it makes me so angry I find it hard to think straight. Can't you find some other approach to this issue but "my way or the highway?"

I have gotten the impression that most of the Modern Library list citations in Wikipedia articles were made by an anon, 64.228.30.118, who for some reason decided to add them to the articles for every book that on the list. And did so using a formula that was unduly long and unduly respectful to the Modern Library.

Also, could you provide me with a model or example of what you think should be done—a Wikipedia article that makes the point that a book is "great" or notable or "one of the best novels" in some category, in the way that you think is proper? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I find the inclusion and defense of such lists irritating, so when you're feeling "angry", take into consideration the degree of annoyance I must feel to spend hours deleting all references and, at having to subsequently explain my edits.
A suitable model would be to mention peers or specific critics rather than arbitrary lists. -- Simonides 05:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You're very right, Simonides. Doubly so because this Modern Library thing is a marketing tool primarily for the American market. Most of these books are published in the UK as Penguin Classics. Should we be noting in all their articles that Penguin considers them classic? It tells us absolutely nothing about the book. I say rid us of the references.Dr Zen 08:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins

The Lance6wins arbitration case is open. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins/Evidence. --mav 10:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Andrés? ACs!

Please vote in the Arb Comm elections!

And what is it with you and people named André? I love André Previn; he put out a beautiful little autobio not long ago.

+sj+ 13:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People named Andre - what do you mean? I didn't know about Previn's autobio, but I have not a few recordings of his performances. -- Simonides 13:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John O'Hara page proposal

What do you think of this proposal? (Leave comments there). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. BTW I'd noticed your User Contributions list didn't have anything after August 12th, so I knew your absence of comment was just due to your being offline. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi Simonides. Edits from your IP have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 05:48, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

[edit] La disparition

That's fine; I personally think that the article should remain at La disparition to avoid favoring one translation over another, but I don't care enough to contest the move. Oh, by the way, it's La disparition not La Disparition, because in French you only capitalize the first word of a book title, not every word in the title. --—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

As I explained on your user page, retaining the original title is preferable but unfeasible in most cases, except where the title in English IS the foreign title (ex. Les Miserables) - I believe this is also the current Wikipedia policy, but I forget the exact pages where it's stated (you may find it in the MOS); as for capitalization of later words in French titles, I'm aware of the style (you do capitalize proper nouns though, ex. Du cote de chez Swann) but I just happened to be thinking in English. Thanks for the help & co-operation. -- Simonides 23:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] India image

I plan to delete your IndiaNumbered1.png map as I have modified it (IndiaNumbered2.png). Let me know if you have any objections, s'il vous plaît. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:22, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC

No objections, except that I find the text in your image rather small and fuzzy. Do you think I could edit it, or, alternately, edit my image with identical text and we can switch back, or, could you edit it to make the text fall in the same line and use a different font like Arial that is clearer than Times New Roman when it is small?
By the way, it's not just this India map that needs to be changed but the one for each of the states - if you go to Nagaland you will see what I mean - it would be great if you could help with that, and I'm asking you because I have appreciated your involvement in the matter so far. -- Simonides 23:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strange, apparently Gzornenplatz is the only permanent guest of the request for protection page. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:03, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In the news

Hey there, please add news item you're planning on featuring on the main page to the Current events timeline first, as per the guidelines. Regards, Solitude 14:23, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimonography - Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin

Hello,
I am trying to find people interested in making a comprehensive monography about Frederic Chopin (hopefully the most comprehensive ever written :-) ). I have seen that you participate to the Classical Music Wikiproject, so I decided to contact you. It should be published as a CD-ROM under GFDL. If you are interested you could look at a description of the idea on User:Schopenhauer/Chopin. I already contacted some people of Mutopia Project that are interested in helping. Chopinhauer 14:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Polyglot

Is Roman Jakobson not a multilingual? --Rj 09:00, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Check again. -- Simonides 09:11, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I see. I jumped the gun :) --Rj 09:26, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Gzornenplatz thinks that by displaying your maps, you're pushing "India's POV, suggesting 'this is rightly part of India, but occupied by Pakistan/China'". Is this allegation true? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

On another note, he says that "to properly explain the issue there would have to be a legend saying essentially 'claimed by India, occupied by Pakistan/China'". [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:03, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is a consensus on the current map that was arrived at on Talk:India. Gplatz has not sufficiently engaged in any of the discussions, nor provided any alternatives. If he wishes to change the map, he is welcome to offer a new one for review and discussion; if it is agreed on, he should also replace all the India States map accordingly (I did both) instead of repeatedly reverting to the old one, which is highly POV, Americentric and inaccurate. I don't understand why you have to speak on his behalf when he is perfectly capably of expressing himself, or verify old discussions with me when it is clear he has failed to follow common Wikipedia protocols - if you wish to unprotect any of the pages, ask him to follow Wikipedia policy, and when he agrees, we can continue this topic. -- Simonides 12:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Temp injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 21:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Klistiva

Hi, Simonides. Long time no see. I noticed you had reverted Julia Kristeva and have a question on this article. You said it was a copyvio. So it should be listed on Vote for deletion or not? And someone copied the revision you have reverted, and perhaps it should be deleted too. For further duscussion on Japanese Wikipedia, your information on copyvio in this article will be applicited. --Aphaea 01:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UT

Hello! The article is in fact a copyright vio though it should not be deleted, simply expanded with freshly written material. The non-Biography sections are all fine at the moment. -- Simonides 04:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whine.

Your repeated personal attacks on other editors are unacceptable. Stop making them. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Clarification

Hi Simonides,

My apologies for the reply that I just posted at the Gplatz clarification page. I didn't realize immediately that you were talking about Gplatz and not me :-) I have struck out my reply. Here is a copy:

Simonides, I am not trying to force anyone to meet my demands. I am perfectly happy with the image that you are endorsing, which is why I have not offered an alternative image for editors to comment. I said above that I think your map is perfectly npov; I only said that Gplatz can make that suggestion if he is interested, rather than continually reverting without discussion. Jesus, I am on your side here. --ashwatha 03:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] poll

Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian) I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.

[edit] History of India

Just in case you are interested and are watching this page, the History of India is this week's Indian collaboration. You might be interested in helping out. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg July 3, 2005 09:39 (UTC)

[edit] Back

If you are back, then welcome back. - Xed 22:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR on Joseph Stalin

I've blocked you [4] for 12h for 3RR on Joseph Stalin; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Simonides. If you think this was a mistake, please respond here. William M. Connolley 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi, I am not sure if I violated the rule but it's not important - I want to say thanks for taking mitigating circumstances into account, and that if you review the Talk page and Edit History in question you will understand what the issue is about and who the real POV-pushers are (as attested to by the person who brought up the violation - he lied in his accusations.) -- Simonides 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
not sure if I violated the rule but it's not important - I hope I'm misinterpreting that, because au contraire it is very important. William M. Connolley 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
I really don't see how; the complaint was brought forward by a POV reverter who never used the Talk pages and took over from another reverter. The question of no. of reverts is based on dubious grounds and given that the block was instituted without any research into the matter, it seems pretty irrelevant to me. -- Simonides 06:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Thank you for the condescending edit summary, certainly much appreciated. Best of luck with the article. Jbetak 05:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many ways to disagree, some of them are even respectful. But then, perhaps it's just me. For the record, I have reacted to your comment on the Joseph Stalin's talk page and have glanced though the discussion in question. Peace & happy editing. Jbetak 06:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR on Hitler

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. BlueGoose 03:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Alai 03:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hitler under attack

Dear Simonides, let's put aside the intro disputes at Adolf Hitler for a while, as graver issues have arisen. Hitler is under serious POV attack. Help is appreciated. Str1977 16:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's supposed homosexuality

Just for your information. It should be noted that there is some evidence that User:Karl Schalike is identical with User:Ted Wilkes and multi-hardbanned User:DW. See Schalike's contribution supporting the deleting and reverting tactics by Ted Wilkes which were criticized by several Wikipedia administrators here. For facts supporting the view that Ted Wilkes is a sockpuppet of DW, see [5]. Ted Wilkes is currently placed on probation and banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [[6]]. He was, and still is, involved in an edit war with me concerning claims that some celebrity stars such as James Dean, Elvis Presley and Nick Adams may have been bisexual or gay. Last year Wilkes even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page I had created to a Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but this page never came into existence, as the content was totally deleted by him. See also the articles on Elvis and Me, the Memphis Mafia and related talk pages. It is very interesting that Karl Schalike is now providing an argument in support of the view that Adolf Hitler might be homosexual. However, these claims exist. Therefore, the material may be included in a separate article entitled Hitler's sexuality or Hitler's supposed homosexuality. Onefortyone 21:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hitler

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think you are right. I noticed a pattern of dishonesty and attacks, often by hiding behind the rules (while they violate them), with the support of a number of admins, as well. I think the best thing we can do is to follow the rules but keep documenting this behavior and speaking out about it. Eventually someone higher up will put a stop to it as it's inimical to the intersts of Wikeipedia. MikaM 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is inimical, but unfortunately Wikipedia has been this way for a long time, at least since well before I started editing here. The best thing one can do is be patient, insist on the correctness of information with the help of external, authoritative sources if necessary, and if necessary, ask for the help of administrators who are likely to understand your point - the latter part is important, because as I said, the POV editors themselves enforce their rubbish on articles the same way. -- Simonides 02:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that when it was protected we could not edit it, as in locked. This make me think that protection was lifted. I guess I'm still learning. Thanks for the guidance. Giovanni33 13:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's usually locked, though I'm not sure what is happening this time. -- Simonides 14:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Simonides, for the note.
Hitherto I was unaware of the difference between protected and locked. I though protected meant locked and hence I was surprised that Gio could edit and hence I edited too. I posted a query to Sean Black on this [7]. Sorry about that, it was not attempt to disturb the process. Str1977 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Simonides, it wasn't protected; it was semiprotected. I've just changed the tag. See here for the block log. If it had been fully protected, Str1977 and Giovanni would not have been able to edit it. Ta bu shi da yu fully protected it, and then changed back to semiprotected, and then Sean Black changed the tag to fully protected, presumably without realizing that Ta bu shi da yu had just changed back. There was no illicit editing; there was simply an incorrect tag. I've changed the tag back to semiprotected, but won't change the protection status, as I have recently been involved with the article. By the way, protected does mean locked. AnnH (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ta bu just fully protected it, by the way. -- Simonides 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Regarding WP:3RR, I have a strict policy of never breaking it, so your concern is unnecessary. Camillus (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not simply the 3RR rule that I am concerned about - I hope you understand what I mean. -- Simonides 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

According to soviet secret archive in Soviet Union the executions for counter-revolutionary crimes between 1931 and the 1953 have been 786,098, of which 681,692 in period 1937-38. Why many sites esteem 5 or 8 milions executions? Vess 14:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still around?

Just wondering.Giovanni33 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/m/User_talk%7ESimonides_abc0.html"