User talk:Tearlach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1 July 2005 - January 2006

I'm provisionally back after a long Wikibreak.

If you have replies to any ongoing discussions now in Archive1, please restart the thread on this page. Tearlach 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Can I Help You?

You seem to have some concerns expressed here [[1]]

First time I have heard of them. Might be worthwhile spelling out what is bothering you to see if there is anything I can help you with.

Look forward to hearing from you.

The Invisible Anon 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The only part pertaining to your edits is my comment on openly stated bad faith assumptions about editors who disagree.... In my view, the material at User:86.10.231.219 is well within the area of personal attack, and a breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Such 'hit lists' and detailed documentation of perceived wrongs are never seen as creditable to a user. The objections are well summed up at User talk:Jfdwolff#Advice re:86.10.231.219_requested. Tearlach 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the dialogue here [[2]] today with Kd4ttc assist? The Invisible Anon 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No. If you want to infer motives or collect evidence for whatever takes your fancy, there's nothing stopping you doing it privately. Doing it publicly is the breach of the personal attack policy and good faith guideline. Tearlach 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have taken a further look at the personal attack policy. Whilst I am not sure I agree with your interpretation, I will modify my user page in the light of your comments. The Invisible Anon 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also. You might also reconsider the bit I understand that conventional western medicine is termed "allopathy", and its practitioners are termed "allopaths". As you'll gather from the page Allopathic medicine, it is used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic. Tearlach 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are practical issues over this terminology ... link to diff ... I hope that explains and that there clearly is a need for a name to describe our western kind of medical practice. The Invisible Anon 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't - and this is another problem. I tell you that some people find a term pejorative, and you bludgeon me with a 500-word essay on the problems of finding terminology and how the whole categorisation is fuzzy anyway. It's like asking someone not to use the term "queer" because of its pejorative sense, and getting back 500 words on the problems of finding a term for homosexual people and how there's a continuous gradation between gay and straight anyway. In either case, the theoreticals are irrelevant. I told you that the specific terminology you're using, "allopath", is taken by some as derogatory. Tearlach 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tearlach, Kd4ttc attacted my attention to this discussion. I have also asked John Whaleto to stop the use of said terms with the intention to label or insult[3]. I've noted your response.

I believe the name-calling is souring the debate to an intolerable degree. I intend to report further attacks on WP:ANI with a request for a short-term ban for WP:NPA violations. JFW | T@lk 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Someone is vandalizing the Al-Ahbash page again. Please, help to make it secure. Thanks McKhan

[edit] refreshing slap in the face

I was amused by the slap in the face explanation. He does go on. Steve Kd4ttc 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ehrenfest

I just noticed your modification of Paul Ehrenfest. Actually, Ehrenfest had another son, Paul Jr I believe; there is a picture of him on Einstein's lap, see: http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/contact/pers2a.html and http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/contact/persfotos_einstein/Einstein2.jpg The caption says 'Einstein at the home of Leiden physics professor Paul Ehrenfest with his son on his lap'. Cute as it may be, I don't think it belongs in a biography. I actually edited the tragic story about the murder/suicide out of the main text JdH 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoffrey Martin

Hi there Tearlach - I have done an American Mathematical Society search for his research papers, and it came up with a few - You may want to reconsider your vote, although I don't know enough about the stuff to explain it. Most of the junk about his hobbies should be removed though. Blnguyen 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Tunnard

If I am reading the history correctly, you tagged this article with a copyvio and the notation "suspected offline copyvio". However, you did not either (1) add it to the daily copyvio page log Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_March_4 with supporting detail, nor (2) did you cite the offline work from which you believe the article was copied.

An editor at the help desk inquired about why the article was removed, and asserts that it was not a copyvio. Since you did not follow up on the copyvio tag nor cite a source, I am going to revert it to the last full version. If you have identified a source that it infringes, please feel free to re-tag it, but please complete the copyvio listing process according to the instructions in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Thanks, MCB 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jill_McCormick.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remember to subst and sign!

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

Hello Tearlach. When you use template tags on talk pages, it'd be much appreciated if you could substitute according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template substitution. Just add subst: to the tag; for example, {{subst:bv}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks. :) // Rory096 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Job Collins document

Midgleyis using WP:RS to delete a link to a Collins document [4] [5]. He is just pushing his POV using WP:RS. john 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The sections at WP:RS on reliability, personal websites and partisan websites cover the situation, and generally advise against using personal websites as sole sources. Tearlach 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Midgley is pushing his POV. "Generally" isn't exactly a rule. So this would exclude Quackwatch [6]? as it is a personal and partisan website. Can you define "sole source"? john 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally is exactly a rule - as in "as a rule". If an exception is to be plead then work out the basis on which Whale is an exception to the general rule. Quackwatch, to note one of its differences from Whale, has an advisory board of people who are listed and indeed accessible. To pick another disimilarity between Quackwatch and Whale, Dr Barrett to the best of my knowledge has not either written articles in WP, nor introduced links to his own site into articles written by others. John has done both of those things. Should this not be in an RFC in general space, since otherwise it is likely to be repeated over and over by John? Midgley 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing your POV. The only exception here are the ones you like to make. First it was some rfc on whale at talk mmr which you took it upon yourself to judge on, now you are using WPRS. I'd love to slide this rule over all of the Wiki links, like Quackwatch which is clearly a partisan POV site. Also I take exception to you stalking me. john 07:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

John is writing about me. That catches my legitimate interest. WP:External links to normally avoid is relevant to Whale. I think this needs to be noted on John's talk page, in case anyone in the future takes an interest in the argument on linking. A summary would be best. Midgley 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you beat me to commenting. As you say, Quackwatch is backed by a collective advisory board of solid mainstream credentials; www.vaccination.org.uk is just a scrapbook of anti-vaccination porn. (I use that term in a metaphoric generic sense, for something that focuses on a single idea not to inform, but to excite, gratify and reinforce the feelings of those already sold on that idea). Another reason not to link to it is the amount of copyvio there, articles lifted completely from in-copyright books and periodicals. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works: "linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us". Tearlach 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More or less inevitably, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto You may care to consider commenting. Midgley 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

Your comments on Talk:rational trigonometry directed at me seem inappropriate. The information is useful but you could put it on my own talk page. As you know from the information sheet you reviewd, the recommendation to seek dispute resolution came from Pepsidrinka and met with skepticism on my part. You also are aware that I stated I saw no "problem" myself, and that I requested any response should be directed to me privately. I requested advice, on my talk page, as to how to move this discussion forward in the Wikipedia environment. You can review the talk page itself if this is unclear. Pepsidrinka appeared in response to the help tag. It's nice to know you agree with me so emphatically but it's not so nice to have that point made in such an inappropariate setting. I wonder if I should edit it out. I favor a full historical record but it is certainly misplaced. I'll be watching here, or you can come over to my place.

No, the inappropriateness is invoking dispute resolution, in particular mediation, over a matter that hasn't even reached the point of acrimonious discussion. Do you believe everything people advise you? If it met with skepticism, why did you do it? Calling for mediation is a high-level option - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - and likely to be perceived as bad faith when there are no grounds for it. Tearlach 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational trigonometry

If Norman Wildberger writes "The way I became interested in this topic was...", that is autobiographical. If he writes: "Wildberger was the first to understand this particular point", that is autobiographical. If he writes, "The way in which Fibonacci's identity is used in rational trigonometry is...", that is not autobiographical. He's not writing about himself or about his achievements; he's writing about mathematics. Michael Hardy 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction is a quibble. I'd take someone writing about a topic they themselves invented, and in which they're still prime mover, as a definite breach of Wikipedia:Autobiography. Tearlach 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's a "quibble", that's another reason why I think writing about oneself should not be forbidden outright. Perhaps a guideline should warn people to be very careful when doing so and point out some specific pitfalls involved. But I think it's really a stretch to consider such a thing autobiography. This policy (if that's what it is) would deprive Wikipedia of expertise in cases like this. Michael Hardy 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchmen

I've noticed that you made several edits in the history of this page some time ago. I have put a bit of time into the article (as both User:Allthesestars and User:Adasta in an attempt to bring this article up to scratch. I think the page would benefit greatly from a few dedicated editors, and was wondering if you would be interested in looking over this article once again?

Citing sources and adding an NPOV "Themes" section is high on the priority list of this article. Adasta 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have a glance. Tearlach 11:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC. Troll. Remember above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC to Mount Personal Attacks, Harrassment & Uncivility

An RfC "must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." It must be about a pre-existing dispute. There must have been prior attempts to resolve it.

This RfC was commenced by User:Midgley in a fit of pique after I had properly canvassed opinions of other editors about seeking a block on him because of his continuing "obnoxious" behaviour. That arose because User:Pansophia had approached me for advice about User:Midgley Wikistalking her and editing articles he had never previously shown interest in. He started Wikistalking her after she supported me when Midgley impersonated me and his sockpuppets were blocked.

The RfC was done immediately after the failure of his "Nth" attempt (again in pique) to have my talk page deleted - see here for the outcome - [[7]].

He was in such a hurry he did not even start the RfC properly. See here where the full extent of the dispute is described as "troll" - [[8]]. An RfC is not meant to be entered into lightly.

Then, instead of dealing with it properly he visited your talk page and invited you to join in.

You have now raised further multiple "disputes" and involving multiple individuals.

There is also no single pre-existing "dispute". This is also the first time in this RfC that this comprehensive allegation of "trolling" has been raised.

The RfC also contains gratuitous abuse such as use of terms like "dick".

Overall, this is an oppressive use of the RfC and not a bona fide use of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) & amended 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. I explained the typical process for RFC development at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 10:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a separate dispute not covered by the RfC. I am following the dispute resolution procedures.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the separate dispute, with whom is it, and why is it on Tearlach's user talk page? I do not think it is a separate dispute and I have copied it and will copy further reelvant material tot eh RFC talk page. It would save time and effort and clarify matters if you did th ediscussion and response there rather than on several other user's pages. If you persist, someone may assume that you are deliberately causing difficulty and confusion. Midgley 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate. These are simple specific points. I look forward to hearing from you but I soon might not be able to spend much time on this and will have to pick it up later. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219 is about your conduct. Continuing that conduct in response to it comes under the existing RFC. Take your responses there. Tearlach 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is about your conduct in running an RfC in this way and not my conduct. See [[9]]:-

"RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."
"Note that the RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. It may also be the first step in dispute resolution leading to arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

I have some considerable justification raising this with you on the basis of what you have been doing and your overall conduct of this matter.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Take your responses to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach does that mean whether you will respond or not depends on which page in Wikipedia the complaints are placed on? Are you saying that you will respond if these complaints appear in the talk pages of the RfC but not here (even though this is a separate dispute from the RfC you started).

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a separate dispute; it is a response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Take it there. Tearlach 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to a reasonable position you are taking. I am raising justified concerns about your conduct (not my conduct) and you are not prepared to say whether you will answer them here or anywhere else. I should be greatly obliged if you would reconsider the position you are taking because it is indefensible. Are you prepared to say whether you will discuss the valid well-grounded concerns I have raised.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Complaints about the basis of an RFC belong at the RFC itself. Tearlach 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:86.10.231.219 who is presenting the confusing appearance of being the User:The Invisible Anon should take his complaint, and his dispute, and his view of the workings of WP to an RFC, whether the existing one (which as he says could be turn out to be about someone other than him, on a cold day in hell I think) or to a brand new RFC he creates, otherwise by making threats on talk pages he is harrassing other users. "Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate." would be one of the funniest things since Pooh puzzled over Wol's doorknocker, if it seemed humourous. Procedure. Midgley 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Invisible Anon impersonations

personal attack removed

As Midgley says at User talk:86.10.231.219#If you have a complaint, if you have a gripe, take it to dispute resolution. Tearlach 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done - I have asked you to respond so that a resolution can be found but you refuse to discuss the matter. Most unreasonably.

It also seems you hide information embarrassing to your case by deleting relevant edits.

And that is a good reason why you should stop making the RfC a moveable feast. You also need to you stop changing the RfC (and vandalising my responses - see the current response eg. as here [[10]]).

Here is an example of one of your deletions below:-

The personal attack made was on me. User:Midgley makes a claim here [[11]] which is not true.

It was corrected here [[12]].

You deleted the fact that User:Midgley was blocked from using both of his sockpuppets.

As another example, you also deleted the response you were given to your allegations about the use of "allopath" being proper and stuck a link in instead. You did not reply to it - now you claim it was trolling but the fact is that you were given a full answer and you could not answer it yourself because you had no valid case - so now you claim there is trolling going on.

As you know very well, if you want to accuse someone of something, you do not do it for the first time in an RfC. You should have raised it with me and gone through the dispute resolution procedures. Perhaps you should start taking your own advice.

How about you start responding here to me on these issues instead of jumping in on an inappropriate RfC that User:Midgley started out of pique without following the dispute resolution procedures and without attempting to settle what are claimed to be "disputes". The RfC at the moment looks like one very large personal attack.

I invite you again to consider this. I am going to have to leave this alone for a while. Think on it. By discussing matters perhaps a consensus can be achieved on what is in dispute - if anything.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 17:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All this pertains to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Take it up there. Tearlach 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette

This may be interesting Midgley 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfC instructions

Hi Tearlach. Would you take a look at my proposal linked from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation#New instructions? Sorry for the solicitation, but as you know, AfC is not exactly the busiest place these days. Best regards. ×Meegs 03:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks very good; I've commented there. Tearlach 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental revert

I accidentally reverted your edits to Articles for creation/Today, but now restored them. When you blanked the copyrighted information, I accidentally thought it was vandal blanking. Sorry. —M e ts501^talk 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Tearlach 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian psychedelic trance

I have just started this article today, thought you could expand! Psychomelodic (people think (people from Alpha Centauri think that I look like Zelig ^{write your own!}) ^edit) 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't know much about this topic! I added Penta (music) in response to an Articles for Creation request while working on the Penta page. Tearlach 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption Psychomelodic (people think (people from Alpha Centauri think that I look like Zelig ^{write your own!}) ^edit) 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

you asked for a translation on a article posted in French...Thanks to babelfish, here you go:

Plaisance du Touch Plaisance du Touch

Magnique ville de l'agglomération de Toulouse avec 15000 habitants appelés Plaisançois où Plaisantin pour les intimes. Une dizaine de banques longent l'allée centrale appelée avenue des pyrénées en compagnie d'une trentaine de coiffeur et autant de boulanger. Lac célèbre pour ces canards dont les habitants fournissent le pain. Collége renommé de par la présence d'un grand gymnase. Le maire y est réélu tous les 6 ans depuis quelques décennies.

[edit] Sources www.plaisancedutouch.com

No problem with the notability of this town - but this is the English Wikipedia. Anyone care to translate? Tearlach 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the translation:

Magnique city of the agglomeration of Toulouse with 15000 inhabitants called Plaisançois where Joker for the close friends. Ten banks skirt the central alley called avenue of the Pyrenees in company of about thirty hairdresser and as much baker. Lake famous for these ducks whose inhabitants provide the bread. Famous Collége from the presence of a large gymnasium. The mayor has been re-elected there every 6 years for a few decades.

[edit] WP:AfC

Hi! I see you've been working on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today. I'm glad to see it, since that place is often neglected and I've had to neglect it myself recently. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Templates? They make responding to requests easier and quicker. Anyway, thanks for your time. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Unfortunately, so many of them seem not-quite-applicable to the templates. Tearlach 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ambrose

Interesting development on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ambrose. Ambrose is continuing to add POV material to his article through an IP, even after he seemed to agree to let a "third party" [his quotations] edit it. --JChap 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: noted. Tearlach 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [13]
Roger ambrose 01:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the email

Cheers for responding to my RfC at Talk:University of Kent, and sorry for taking so long to say thank you...fortunately the users in question have indeed been blocked and so hopefully the dispute there is over, at least for the time being. Keep up the good work! Nuge talk 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspectives on neutrality

Thanks for expressing your concern about the possibility of encouraging new users to believe WP:NPOV is flexible and negotiable. That is certainly not the intent. As a relatively equitable means for encouraging balanced coverage, the neutrality policy is certainly one of the Wiki's strengths, and one which must always be kept in mind. With regard to addressing the perspectives of newcomers on neutrality while welcoming them, the subject certainly should be brought to their attention and highlighted early on during acculturation. Perhaps additional links to the neutrality policy discussion page or WikiProject Countering systemic bias would be a good option to address your concerns, though keeping the welcome streamlined conflicts to an extent with with the objective of adequately addressing broader questions about neutrality within the Wiki (that matter could easily fill a book, and obviously would be too much for newcomers to grok). In any case, the subject is vital to the Wiki's mission, and encouraging newcomers to reflect on article neutrality, as you obviously have, could certainly be good. Ombudsman 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Brockman "Genealogy" Pages

I don't agree with deleting these pages - wikipedia has articles on "Kent Brockman" the comic book character and belly button fuzz. There are plenty of pages I would like to deem irrelevant but I don't think that's how wikipedia works just yet and perhaps it shouldn't. Sandwich Eater 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, #6 Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. If you try an internal search on Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, you find repeated consensus to delete on such grounds. I've moved them on to AFD. Tearlach 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles

Not at all; just on the basis of repeated precedent for deletion of entirely genealogical entries. For instance, inclusion of Sir William Brockman is fine, because he actually did something. Tearlach 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that wikipedia is absolutely full of aristocratic lines,the Stuarts, jacobites, old lines from Germany, Greece whatever. Those lines of successions and the succesion boxes are by their nature chock full of pages for people who aren't particularly noteable, just the fifteenth son of Otto et cetera. Let's face it, wikipedia should be open to what people are interested in reading about and people are interested in the descendants of the Romanovs, and perhaps even a few country squires in the UK and their house.Sandwich Eater 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're not going to answer? Please see my note on James Brockman Esq. Given time, I could do a better job showing his notable-ness. If you look up "James Brockman" a songwriter I've never heard of pops up. JB Esq was actually a pretty big deal in his time I think, hence the "Brockman Papers" in the british museum and that sort of thing. And, I still think you need to delete all of the unknown/non-notable european nobilities, particularly the deposed lines if you're going to delete gentry. Otherwise it's a bit class-ist and culturally biased, no?Sandwich Eater 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML Export

Can you point me in the direction of a means to export the wikipedia HTML behind the article so that I can easily post these pages on friendlier sites? Thanks! Sandwich Eater 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in helping you inflict this genealogical wank on others. Still, have a look at Google: [14] Generally, most of the focus is on converting things to Wikipedia, but there are converters such as Tero-dump. I'm not sure what language/system they're for. Alternatively, check out WikiTree, which accommodates all this family arse. Tearlach 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks straight forward. I appreciate your taking the time to post that when you're not very keen on the subject matter. Accomodating family arse seems a bit grammatically stretched. I would think family fluff, crap, shite, or drivel would be a more appropriate fit from the context.

For some reason I am interested to know why you feel genealogy has so much intrinsic wanky arseness. Is there really any difference from this and an article regarding where any group of people come from (eg. Choctaws or St. David Islanders)? And if several thousand people worldwide in Australia, Canada, and the USA are all descended from the same crop of cousins from 1 patch of land in the 1600s and have a lot of interest in that, what's wrong with that? Finally, just because a monarch or other aristocratic system hasn't entitled someone to notoriety does that really define notability? The notability criteria seem a bit vague and there seems to be a wave of anti-genealogy editing afoot. There are also a lot of one-hit wonders and 1 book authors that have made their way into the encyclopedia that will have far less notability 200 years from now than does James Drake-Brockman Sheriff of Kent.

So, I suspect that there are editors squashing anything that smells like genealogy right now because they don't like genealogy, as opposed to an objective notability criterion that is equally applied. But if it's causing offense I can certainly see the value of moving the material to a private website. Some of the actual descendants would prefer it moved to a private site anyway. Funny how tribes, descendants of notables (and arguably noteables), and so forth tend to prefer privacy while outsiders and tangentially related folks are fascinated to read about them. Sandwich Eater 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic fencing

I saw on the talk page of Academic fencing that you were interested in completing and/or improving that article. Apparently User:Kresspahl did not dare to do so. I have just started. It would be nice if someone who is interested in that exotic subject would polish up my English (it is not my native language) and check if this can be understood by someone who was not born in Central Europe. Best regards, --Rabe! 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panchaloga

Hi, There seems to be an error in the spelling of the word panchaloha on the page you created. It is not panchaloga, but panchaloha. Panchaloga translates to 5 people, while panchaloha into five metals.

[edit] Malandragem

I accessed the article first time today and observed you deleted the old text and put it in the discussion. Why is that? Why better translation? Tell me, maybe I can improve this. El Chemaniaco 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The English translation wasn't too good - just an unformatted dump of the machine translation of the Portuguese Wikipedia entry ([15]), and not up to the standard required for an English language encyclopedia. It'd be fine if someone can do a better translation, and provide sources. Tearlach 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I hope I am doing this right! Sorry, if not. At 01.15 on 17th Nov you reviewed a contribution that I made as "Professor Meredith Wooldridge Thring". I found your comments helpful, and I tried to follow your guidance. I re-submitted it as "Meredith Wooldridge Thring, 1915-2006" and David Wooley has put a comment on it dated 17.44 20th Nov. Would it be in order for me to ask you to review this new version? jthring 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/a/User_talk%7ETearlach_e372.html"