User talk:Wareh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia 2 Coffee Preparation 3 OBL 4 AD vs. CE 5 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 6 Vandalism of Protagoras 7 Sappho 8 Barnstar 9 Gears history 10 Autoblock 11 Jerusalem Bible 12 Invite to WikiProject Spam 13 More on Sappho 14 Cartago delenda est v Carthago 15 Aristotle texts 16 Links to my philosophy page 17 De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) 18 Helots 19 Prison writings

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Wareh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: The five pillars of Wikipedia, How to edit a page, Help pages, Tutorial, How to write a great article, Manual of Style. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Tone 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have figured this out now! Wareh 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee Preparation

Hello! Instead of the link you added to this article, do you think you have the time to incorporate any additional info it has? If it has a lot of info that the article doesn't, it would be really good to improve the article. If not, it doesn't really add a lot to people's understanding of the subject. Just a thought. I'm rabidly anti-link! Skittle 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize. I added this link, because in the course of improving the entry Napoletana coffee, I realized that the FAQ had more detailed information about the variety of brewing methods and their proper classification than has yet been incorporated into this Wiki article. So let's leave the link there as a stimulus to someone who can do a good job of enhancing the article to the point where it can be deleted as superflous. Wareh 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OBL

Please do not put garbage in the articles. Thank you. DS 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think that was garbage. If the article is going to have a whole section on that deranged woman's ludicrous fiction, it should have a sentence with a reputable source at least giving the substance of her ravings, n'est-ce pas? Wareh 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to be referring to something so peculiar on the grounds that it's in Harper's, you'll have to provide the issue and page number. Thanks. DS 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! I haven't included it on the grounds that it's in Harper's, I've included it because it's vivid information as to how Boof actually describes the subject of the article. The rest of the Boof stuff in the article is in the category "fiction that gets to stay in Wiki because a source can be cited." In a just world, Boof's role in this article goes down to two sentences: a vivid representation of her own delusional statements, and the comment that she is generally regarded as delusional. I've provided the first half of this. Wareh 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AD vs. CE

Although i disagree with you I appreciate your comments on the proposed policy page. But, you need to know that the discussion of this proposal pretty much ended over a year ago - it was clear that the proposal would not be accepted, the proposal was defeated, although the vote was relatively close. My point is, it is a dead issue. Preference for dating system is to be determined by those people active in editing a given article. Around that time editors on several religion related articles reached an entirely informal and unofficial compromise which was that articles about Christianity or privileging a Christian POV would use BC and AD, articles on Jewish or Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc. topics would use BCE and CE, and articles representing the views of different faiths including Christianity would use both systems. This has been a pretty stable arrangement for the past year. I want to reiterate that it is not a rule but rather a way for editors of diverse views to get along with one another and move on to actual content. the actual policy is, both systems are allowed, it is up to the editors of a given article.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of realized it was a defunct discussion. Just thought I'd add another perspective to the record. I think an informal and flexible policy is certainly the right solution in practical terms, and I do sympathize with the desire to avoid inappropriate religious biases, as I hope is evident, despite my quirky opinion on this point. Wareh

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Jagoldai Liqueur coffee Gregory Wright (astrophysicist) Evagrius of Constantinople Commentary on Job Gregory Serper History of Animals Targum Onkelos Laches (dialogue)

Coffee pot Hexapla Gregory Vlastos Alcaeus (mythology) Alcibiades (dialogues) Charmides (dialogue) On the Heavens Coffee bag Gregory Barker John Anthony McGuckin

Cleanup Torrefazione Italia Hippias Sanka Merge Epigram Grain coffee Yiannis Dritsas Add Sources Virtue ethics

Gregory Dark Gregory Douglas Wikify On the Soul Cuban espresso Southeast Alabama Expand Spiel Biblical Hebrew language Marcus Terentius Varro

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Protagoras

At User talk:168.10.112.2, you apparently blocked the user for vandalism on 4 August 2006. The user blatantly vandalized Protagoras today, and I'm wondering if the IP address oughtn't to be reblocked. (It serves multiple users through the Georgia Dept. of Ed., but the contribution history seems mostly vandalism.) Wareh 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As the last warning was a blatant vandal tag, I have reblocked the IP vandal for one week. Thanks for letting me know! You can report these vandal attacks at WP:AIV, which may get a quicker response than leaving a message on an individual's Talk page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sappho

The "long" mark follows the "p" in Sappho because it is geminated. --Macrakis 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Wareh 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

It's about time someone recognized your excellent contributions. Have a barnstar. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wareh 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gears history

Hi W, Just to let you know that there seems to be records of gears being used by "North African Hellenistic culture" at 360BC, but I have no "hard" reference - this was a commercial website, and the facts are stated as "while historians generally accept", without saying who the "historians" are. I'm looking into it, but may need to get help from our engineering library. You had a good question - WP is short on melding science and history. Seejyb 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: I glanced through your discussion page. Who/what is Boof/OBL? Seejyb 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The silly little controversy above had to do with the references to Kola Boof's self-advertised alleged affair with Osama bin Laden. Thankfully, since then, her name has entirely disappeared from the OBL article (I had intervened when there was a credulous reference, by inserting some of the quotes from her own memoir [as excerpted in Harper's] that are hard to take seriously). Wareh 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock

((unblock-auto|1=149.106.224.2|2=repeated additions of unsourced and potentially libellous content|3=Can't sleep, clown will eat me))

Hey Wareh. If you are able to leave messages on talk pages other than your own, you are not blocked. It may be that you're coming from a network that requires login. Please let me know if this is not the case, or email me at the address listed on my userpage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was still getting the autoblock message when I contacted you, but it turns out that I simply needed to clear my cache. Thanks! Wareh 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem Bible

Do we really need to cite it here also even though the New Jerusalem Bible article sites this? http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/6/wansbrough.html The Sunday Missal uses the Jerusalem Bible in the credits section of the introduction page. I have reverted back but if you want to press on with the citations for both we could, but is it really needed here? (CptKirk 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Citations are always nice; my main concern, though, which I'll try to state clearly at Talk:Jerusalem Bible and Talk:New Jerusalem Bible, is just that I'd like good reasons for believing that every bit of the text in the article is precisely correct. Wareh 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I nice work on User_talk:Jay_ryann. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work at WikiProject Spam! The project pages gave me valuable pointers to the right templates and procedures. I'll continue dealing with linkspam as often as it crosses my path, and I appreciate the warm welcome to join, which I'll do if I become a more active force in the antispam wars... Wareh 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Sappho

Hi, Wareh! I recently (and admittedly as a total experiment) nominated the Sappho article for Good Article status. The reviewer made some wonderful comments, some of which I've implemented. However, I'm not very well versed in Sappho's works. Would you mind taking a look at the other suggestions and seeing if you can do anything with them? It was a learning experience for me - I know now that I should have more than a little knowledge about the subject before nominating an article :) Live and learn! Anyway, your help would be appreciated! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in helping this article. In fact, while you were leaving that comment, I was looking (unsuccessfully—but I think I can find it when I go home) for the reference to the Italian article that showed the connection between Sappho and Gregory of Nazianzus' poetry! Meanwhile, please contact me again if a more specific question comes up that you'd like help with—anything concerning this article or the rest of Archaic and Classical Greek literature. I'd be glad to look at texts in the original and maybe try to find some references. Wareh 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartago delenda est v Carthago

If you're sure, please do proceed. I wasn't and Google hits didn't help. Seems you have expert knowledge - if you can fill the requested citation in the article, please do! --Dweller 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure and am just waiting for an admin to delete Carthago delenda est so I can move the page there. The form Cartago is found in some inscriptions, but it's not standard. The Dutch, German, Finnish, Danish, and Croatian Wikipedias have articles on this phrase (I'll add the interwikis after the move) and have all gone with Carthaginem. Wareh 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. If you can enhance the article today, we can probably get a DYK. --Dweller 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for enhancements. Do you the the cn tag at the start is still needed/justified? --Dweller 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be fine deleting it. If anyone follows up the references to the ancient sources, they'll see that it was one man's clarion call at any rate! Wareh 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotle texts

Thnaks for falgging two Aristotlte texts for possible linkspam. I've changed the link (for the same translation), so I guess they can now be kept. --Tikiwont 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, these are unnecessary articles that need additional clean-up chores, so I'm not sure it wouldn't be better just to delete. Basically, there are far more significant works of Aristotle that have no articles. It's hard to believe that these stubs are destined to grow anytime soon. Moreover, they were created under non-standard names, so they need to be moved if they remain as articles. In theory, it would be great to have good articles on every minor treatise Aristotle wrote. In practice, the only reason to have these articles exist now is because one editor wanted to linkspam. While I wouldn't ever want something deleted without total consensus, I will consider just changing these into redirects to Aristotle. Does that seem reasonable? Wareh 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I wasn't aware of the naming problem, but merely noticed that the translation can be sourced somewhere else and that there are other similar stubs such as On Longevity and Shortness of Life (which actually caused me a copy and paste error), so I just thought I give it a try. Now, I really have no definite opinion, but having a stub for the missing article On Youth, Old Age, Life and Death, and Respiration with a link to the translation as well as to Aristotle might be practical, while there may be indeed little sense to keep the ambiguous redirect On Breathing around. --Tikiwont 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'll write a stub as you suggest and add the prod template to On Breathing with an explanation. Wareh 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to my philosophy page

Hi Wareh, It seems you deleted the links i posted to my philosophy website online (see here), but I'm not sure why, you said they were 'linkspam', but my intention is to build the most complete collection of philosophy resources online, and in each section, nietzsche, plato, aristotle, bertrand russell etc it has more content online than all of the other listed sites in the external links section, in some of them, it has more content than all of the other sites do _combined_. In the section "Wikipedia is not a directory" in the faqs it only says that you should not post links to "repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons", "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries... wikipedia is not the white pages", or "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." In wikipedia's 'spam' page it says no social networking sites, no products, no businesses, no blogs, and again this site meets none of these criteria.

If you could explain why you've done this then please leave a comment here or on my wikipedia account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.247.227.222 (talk • contribs).

You're conveniently leaving out the prohibition on "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" (see further Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). You're linking to your own website, and any argument over the quality or aims of your website is beside the point. If you want Wikipedia editors to leave the links alone, the minimum first step would be to remove advertising from the pages linked to; no one is going to countenance a campaign to generate advertising revenue by placing links in Wikipedia articles.

What I've written above is the full reason and the point of view held in consensus by the Wikipedia community. But I'd like to raise an additional point. Can you reassure me that, for example, your hosting Brad Inwood's translation of the Halcyon is not in violation of copyright law? And do you have Francisco Gonzalez's or Hackett's permission to reproduce Gonzalez's translation of Clitophon? These are obviously not public domain texts, and the fact that your website, in general, does not provide even minimal bibliographic information on the texts you've harvested (translator, publisher, year), it is hard to know how many other texts under copyright you have in your collection.

I encourage you to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. But first it is necessary that you understand that strewing links to your own website (even if it were not for-profit) is the very definition of linkspam. Wareh 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, but i try to put bibliographic information where i can, you say there is no translator information, yet you have cited two examples where the translator is clearly stated, and the majority of the other texts which have been translated from a language other than english have at least this, if not more details available. publisher details seemed irrelevant where the texts are in public domain and normally available in many different editions. the advertising on the site will just about pay for hosting costs, which is the reason its there, so far the site has made about $10 in two and a half months. i typed up the text of halcyon myself, simply because it wasn't available anywhere else online, without thinking to check whether it were were in public domain or not, assuming it would be. the text of clitophon is from http://ac.nice.fr (i think thats the url, try copying any section of the text in quotes into google). anyway, the question is, do you think my site should be listed anywhere in wikipedia's external links or not? -dave

Look, I like the way you're formatting the Plato texts on your website. And I'm also one of those people who would just as soon have free access to the best of everything. The low ad revenue you cite is all the more reason to consider going ad-free on parts of your website you really want to be seen as respectable and attractive in the public sphere (Wikipedia, academia, etc.). (And, let's be honest, if you succeed well enough in promoting your site, you could make significantly more money from it, which is why the only way to deny the profit motive is to eliminate it.) Then, understand that on Wikipedia, self-linking is simply a total taboo (I got myself in trouble once before by giving an editor advice on the conditions under which linking to his own website might be acceptable; he did everything I suggested, and still got blocked for persistently linking to his own website, which is why I'm being so sure not to repeat that mistake with you); all you can do is build the best site possible and trust that it will get noticed (there is nothing wrong with suggesting it to other editors on a talk page, although, again, any promotion of your own wares will be met with a good dose of instant skepticism). Now, the copyright issue is a very serious one. "Assuming it would be" is a dangerous strategy that won't get you very far with the publisher's lawyers; the law will also not respect the argument that you don't have to worry about the copyright if someone else broke the law & put it on the internet before you. You should never put any text that is under copyright online without permission, and (as a corollary) you should always know the publication info, including year, for anything you host. Otherwise you will (1) have no credibility with the law-abiding world (Wikipedia, academia, etc.) and (2) expose yourself to very predictable legal trouble. The ac.nice.fr site seems to be breaking the law as well. But something like the Halcyon (where you enter the text yourself from a book published in the 1990's and are the sole provider of it on the internet) really ought to set off a red flag in your mind! Wareh 13:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice, if you think of anything else leave a note on my talk page, best regards, Dave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.1.148.83 (talk • contribs).

[edit] De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

Ok. As I said, I had no knowledge on the subject in question, I simply wanted to help out. That was why I did not empty the list as I thought it best for another opinion on the matter.
Seraphim Whipp 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yipes, no wonder you asked for more people to watch this article! I wonder: does Doug know that these works were written in Latin? The numerology seems to proceed by counting the letters in English... --Akhilleus (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His answer to this is that Petrarch knew English. Jerome too, I guess. Wareh 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This reminds me of the theories of Edo Nyland, who really deserves his own WP article. He believes that all modern European languages were artificially created from Basque roots sometime in the Middle Ages. (I wonder if Petrarch knew Basque...)

Anyway, there are no easy answers in a situation like this. Unfortunately, the wiki method favors people with unusual viewpoints--they're very passionate about their chosen subjects, and users with less energy get tired of arguing and move on to other things. So, one piece of advice is: be patient. This situation will probably last a lot longer than you want it to. Second: get more input. This is already happening because of your posts to the Wikiprojects, but other methods of getting more editors involved are Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Third opinion. These are initial steps in the process known as dispute resolution; further options are mediation, and eventually the Arbitration committee. I doubt the situation will get to that point, though--as I've already said on the article's talk page, article content is governed by the policies WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, and The Petrarch Code doesn't meet those, and won't even if Doug publishes his theories in a book.

As for Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Crackpot users, I can see the application here, but that page isn't policy. Another page to look at is Wikipedia:disruptive editing--this page is a guideline, not policy but something that has a force akin to policy. However, Doug's behavior, as far as I've seen, is not anywhere close to the level that would warrant a block or a ban; for the moment, we'll just have to deal with it. I'll keep watching the page. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across your interesting problem quite by accident, and just wanted to offer condolences. If it is any consolation, you are not alone. The more obscure the topic, the lesser the probability that you will have anyone rational working with you on it. Try to get some outside editors to put the page on their watch list in order to help out with the reverts. For a cross-cultural example of a numerological crackpot see: Subhash_Kak#.22The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda.2C.22_and_its_critiques. Buddhipriya 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, and especially to Akhilleus for all of those leads which I may follow up as the situation prompts & as time allows. I think the best thing for me to do is to keep the page (and possibly some of Doug's other pages) on my watchlist, but to force myself to intervene more occasionally and concisely. I can't afford the time involved in writing fruitless footnoted explanations on the talk page every time Doug adds something irrelevant to an article. My hope under this policy would be that less is more, in the long run (because I'll stay involved rather than giving up). If I need to sound the alarm, I think I'll go to RfC instead of Third Opinion, because the latter did not attract anyone willing to get to the bottom of the situation when it was used for Doug's 62 sub-articles to De viris illustribus; I had to go and nominate them all for deletion myself. Thanks again for the counsel & sympathy. Wareh 13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If he adds something to the article with no reference, just revert it. You do not have to do much defense for reversion of unsourced content. No footnote, no entry. If you follow the same practice yourself, you will add fewer remarks, but each will be well-cited and therefore difficult to remove unless the citation can be shown to be false. Having a few friends watch for unsourced additions helps you not break the 3R rule. People may not be able to assist you by adding any well-referenced content, but they can certainly help by throwing out unsourced nonsense. Nonsense that is sourced is more difficult, since Wikipedia does not have good procedures for vetting sources. Buddhipriya 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helots

Thanks for the information. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prison writings

Thank you! I noticed; appreciate it. There's a lot more I can think of offhand (MLK letter from Birmingham jail ... Marquis de Sade, 120 days of Sodom ... Mein Kampf ... Civil Disobedience ...) I can add some when I'm home from work and have more than a few seconds to spare. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, never mind: you already put those in. I was remembering a version I saw from several hours ago... :) Antandrus (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've missed something obvious, but I'm hoping it has some critical mass now. Thoreau got a lot of mileage out of that night in jail, but I don't think that'll qualify him. Wareh 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)