User talk:Relata refero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most recent activity: מסמך נקדי, Papa II, Kulwant Roy.

Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Your comment...

... has a reply. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings

Updated DYK query On 29 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
--BorgQueen (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Edits on Sati and Jauhar

Hiya mate,

I noticed that you made similar edits to both the pages, namely removing the book sourced information. Before this turns into a 3RR problem or an edit war, I want to know your opinion in this regard, since a book cite is usually quite accurate. Do u have any specific doubts regarding this book (you can read it at [1]) or the author (who has written other books on Indian History - see [2]). This is what his profile says:

Dr. S.R. Bakshi is an eminent scholar of History and is the author of several works on Indian nationalism and freedom movement. A renowned scholar of history, Dr. Bakshi was working with Indian Council of Historic Research (ICHR), New Delhi till recently.[3]

Hope to hear your opinions. Thanks

Cheers. T/@Sniperz11editssign 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User thanked on his talkpage; followed up on article talkpage. Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I saw your points at the talk page. You make some excellent points. However, I would like to see a link to the exact text if possible. I cant believe that that would be written on the book without proper referencing and research. I think you'd have won this case, if you can provide the link to the book text, if its available online. A quote would also help nail it. Usually, we trust history books, although we shouldn't really do that. Unfortunately, its hard to get peer reviewed sources, and we just have to end up trusting books.
Just to point out, officially, ICHR is not a political organization. See [4] for info about them. They are an autonomous organization, and act as a facilitator for historians in India, as well as provide fellowships for scholars. As it is, they are quite well known in India. Still, you're right about the governmental interference bit.
Thanks. Cheers. T/@Sniperz11editssign 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP 63.196.193.225

Just to let you know one thing, that the IP 63.196.193.225 seems to be nothing but a troll. This IP is also making the edits hostile for me [5], [6]. And User:B Nambiar, Fox News do not become reliable source [7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom case

re your latest comments at talkMamtanmoreland/Proposed decision -

I looked briefly at Gary Weiss. I found some disruptive edits, some not disruptive. FWIW Newbyguesses - Talk 09:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DemolitionMan's RfC

I noted your comments directed at User:DemolitionMan. Given that there is an open RfC on his behavior, I suggest that you might consider commenting there instead. Ronnotel (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I've seen your input in such matters before. What do you think of this. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move request closing at WP:RM

Dear Relata refero! On February 27 you posted a comment on WP:ANI/Move request closing at WP:RM. Unfortunately I was unable to participate in the discussion for a couple of days, and in the meantime it died when the ANI page was archived, so I never got the chance to answer your comment. Now, i'm not sure what you meant by it, but since you probably think that that move requests at WP:RM are handled properly and fair are as important as I think, you are most welcome to join the discussion at WP:ANI/User:Philip Baird Shearer. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi pleased to meet you. On the Mayawati Kumari the previous section is not neutral and a neutrality check has shown this, I and other wikipedians have added cited sources that are correct and verifiable. I have reverted the change you made. If you wish add anything please add it the current version and I have also put back your image you added. Good image by the way, you are good photographer. Thanks.--Jiff5 (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look.

[8] [9]. KBN (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for your advice on White Order of Thule. I notice you mentioned scholarly sources, plural. Would you mind if I asked which ones, apart from Goodrick-Clarke? They do seem to be rather thin on the ground, although I expect one of them will be Gardell's Gods of the Blood which I hope to get hold of rather soon. Gnostrat (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, I've dug up some more sources now. Cheers. Gnostrat (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:JP SK rally.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:JP SK rally.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit comment in adding the tag: "Stupid bloody bot. When an FU rationale has been written out, it shouldn't be difficult to add the tag, should it? Lazy programming." Relata refero (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Relata, for your participation in my recent RfB. Even though you chose not to opine, I appreciate your participation and if you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case I owe you an apology; sorry, -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edits

Firstly, thanks for your efforts in copy-editing Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. I appreciate your contributions. Furthermore:

"who ends as one of the victims" or "who ends one of the victims" - The latter suggests to me that he kills one of the victims, which is not the case here. I wasn't sure about this. Can you please clarify on this? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette

Hello,

Please feel free to join the discussion here [[10]]. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank U

Thank U for your interest. I agree this article has many many errors. I have given this article for peer review. May this article improve. See you there.-->>>Kensplanet (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fork articles

There are two fork articles Islam and anti-Christian persecution and Historical persecution by Christians. The discussion is getting tiresome. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of the Indian rebellion

Thanks for adding some great references to the section. I am planning to rewrite that section in a few minutes and will do it in two passes: one today in which I will only use text-books and some standard monographs, and then another one tomorrow, in which I'll fine tune it with citations from papers etc. You many find some of your citations temporarily disabled, or perhaps replaced by more standard citations. For example, the Rudolphs are great political scientists of contemporary India, but for the mutiny there are more standard references (even text-books) written by historians of early modern India, specifically the mutiny (Stokes, Mukherjee, Metcalf, Bayly). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw your post. Thanks for the refs. Absolutely. I was meaning to incorporate the "clash of knowledges" (both the Indian response to Public Instruction of the 1830s and the evidence from the political pamphlets) anyway. I agree that some material is better suited for "nature" of the revolt, rather than causes. But the page is locked now.  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

You are often seen venturing into politically troubled waters. Can you look at Soman and me quarrelling over an article on a fringe group? 59.91.254.21 (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, though what an absolutely dreadful thing to say.... Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latina

I love your username, Relata refero. I was trying to figure out what it meant, and it was fun when I suddenly realized that the two words were forms of the same verb! I remembered "fero ferre tuli latum" from high school. I looked up "refero" on Victionarium Latinum and it said "portare rem rursum" (carry something back) which makes sense since fero means carry, and also "de rebus vel eventibus dicere, res describere" and for some reason I focussed on "describere" and at first I thought it meant describe, then I thought it mean write down. (Maybe I was getting off track there.) Anyway, I got the meaning "I record in writing those things that have been recorded in writing" as my translation, and I thought that described a Wikipedian's task very well! Perhaps it doesn't specifically mean in writing, though. I don't know if I'd ever noticed before that "relate" and "refer" both come from the same Latin verb.

I would say that it's a particular type of polyptoton: one where the two forms have different roots. A similar structure can be achieved in English (although with a different verb, different forms of it, and different meaning) with something like "The goer went."

Being a neuter plural, I suppose the -a ending doesn't imply that you're necessarily female, as some people may have assumed.

By the way, on your userpage I think you have "Relato" where you mean "Relata", and "referro" with two r's where you mean "refero".

I'll have to come back and have another try at reading that ancient Greek quote! I can understand a little of it already. Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction in Britain

Hi, This is a friendly note. I think the material is fascinating, but it is probably a little off-topic in an encyclopedia article about the rebellion. Both Britannica and Encarta don't mention reaction in Britain, and certainly not literary and cultural fallout. I think political reaction in Britain would be more pertinent. My understanding is that most other sections are summaries of individual articles, whereas, here, the parent article doesn't exist. Finally, my understanding of encyclopedia articles is that they usually don't reference very recent scholarship, preferring instead material that has withstood the test of time (i.e. of scrutiny and criticism). As it is, the article is already > 60 KB of prose text, when it should really be around 40. For example, my main goal in the sections that I am working on is to first reduce their size. Let me know what you think. Maybe there should be a discussion on the talk page on this. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khoor

Thanks for picking that up. As for the question: I notice that your userpage announces that this is an alternate account and won't get involved in policy. Did you always have that attitude, or is it since December last year?, I'd be happy to answer it... if I understood what you mean! But maybe I can give you more details. This is the only alternate account I ever created. It was created in mid-January and, at the time, I informed a checkuser for full disclosure. At least one ArbCom member is also aware of the connection with my other account. Like it says on the userpage, I will not use this account for policy discussions, RfA discussions, ArbCom elections and so on. I do however use it occasionally for AfD and CfD discussions (for the most part because I end up using it routinely to start such discussions). Hope that clears things up. Pichpich (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't followed the debate at WT:SOCK (in fact, I wasn't aware that there was such a debate). If you look at the history of my userpage, you'll see that I originally wrote something like: I won't edit project space. As it turns out, I realized pretty soon that this was impossible since I do mostly categorization of uncat articles: a significant part of these need to be sent to AfD and I also end up noticing problems with category names or improper categories which brings me to CfD. I haven't really given much thought to the actual wording of the sock policy. From a practical point of view, alternate accounts which are used honestly don't pose any problems and in fact they're basically impossible to notice. What I would like to see is a less forgiving attitude for people who use abusive sockpuppets: whether or not they're aware of the actual policy, they know that what they're doing is wrong (as in morally unacceptable). It is, for instance, beyond me why Mantanmoreland wasn't blocked indefinitely after being caught once by checkuser. I don't really want to get into the reasons that drove me to create the alternate account but it really has nothing to do with on-wiki disputes. My main reason for disclosing it to a checkuser is that my other account is an admin-account and so the risk for abuse or appearance of abuse is much greater. Disclosure just felt like the right thing to do: I would hope that any other admin using an alternate account would do the same and this would be a reasonable tweak to the sock-policy. But policy or no policy, editors who want to abuse the system will abuse it. Though I can guarantee that this will never come close to being implemented, I think a checkuser bot would go a long way towards preventing abuse. In hotly debated RfAs (Danny's, Elonka's, etc.), systematic CUs were performed and I don't see any good reason to not do this on every RfA (or even XfD). Doing this with a bot has the advantage of avoiding the privacy issues since it would only report to the checkusers the suspect accounts which could then be examined more closely. But this won't happen, so we'll always have to rely on ad-hoc methods and hope that this abuse is too small-scale to pose a serious threat. Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA - Toddst1

Hi Relata refero, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarvagnya needs lessons on how to 'be civil'

Is there no way to end the harassment of users on Wikipedia. user:Fowler&fowler, user:ncmvocalist, user:Sundar, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE (TO NAME A FEW) are fed up with his behaviour. - A concerned fellow

Wtf? harrassment? from that poodle? Don't be an idiot. Fed up, you say? Right. But he licks enough asses (Yellow Monkey, Poopington & co.) to ensure his safe passage here for the time being. --Dickdasher (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] brainless or what?

How can it be undid revision of yours? Is Nambyaar is brainless or what? --Harjk talk 09:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

I saw your comments on the Roman Catholic Church FAC. I am experiencing similar frustration and I have had a poor opinion generally of the overall quality of FAs for similar reasons for some time. In my experience, outside of MOS issues, GAs seem to be held to higher standard (on average, as GA reviews can be quite varied) than FAs. It does raise the question: What can be done to improve the FA process and the quality of FA articles? I have not had any good ideas. Do you have any thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you come up with any good thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurabia map

Hey, why not? Just because it's a ludicrous conspiracy theory doesn't mean it can't have a map. I had it in mind to replace a silly "Eurabia flag" which somebody made up and posted there, citing a Google Image search as their source. The map seems to me to be a straightforward representation of what the article is talking about and thus acceptable. <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Egermancy, egermancy! Everybody to get from street! The Mooslems are coming!
Seriously, I think it's an appropriate image, as it just presents what the Eurabia folks claim is impending. <eleland/talkedits> 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol, emergency! <eleland/talkedits> 20:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Well, you're wrong, of course, but I'm in too much of a hurry to correct you. Nice use of the unsupported Appeal to Authority and Passive-Aggressive rhetorical techniques, though. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If in a hurry, slow down. I'm sure none of us will see any measurable difference. And if you think telling you directly that your attitude is counterproductive is passive-aggressive..
Earth to Relato, come in Relato. A reality-check hint for you: what makes you believe that I do not have a life off of Wikipedia, one which involves appointments that one is running late for? You DO know that there's life outside of Wikipedia, right?
And if you think telling you directly that your attitude is counterproductive is passive-aggressive....
A quick reminder of your words, as you've apparently already forgotten them: I know its pointless to ask you for civility...
Do you need a further explanation of the connection between that phrase and my characterization of it as "passive-aggressive", or are you going to po-facedly claim that is "telling [me] directly"? Take your time, and I can fetch the butcher paper and crayons if necessary.
Oh, and before you hurry to criticize me for my attitude, perhaps you ought to slow down and read the talk page and contributions of whom I'm responding to. I'm sure none of us will see any measurable difference -- except the free pass you're giving him. Let me know if you need help with that, too. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Relata. or Refero. Not Relato. Slow down and read.

You know, I've already explained the "hurry" comment, and yet you persist in your mistaken interpretation. Not taking the time to read carefully yourself? Oh wait, you did, but have decided to pretend otherwise. Got it.

And if you're in a hurry because of off-wiki requirements - work when you have time.

I was responding to your dippy comment, or had you forgotten that, too?

Really, I can't imagine why you'd go out of your way to antagonise people

Really, what part of the term "response" is unclear to you? Perhaps you need learn the meaning of the expression "The pot calling the kettle black." Maybe I will need those crayons and butcher paper after all. --Calton | Talk 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nakdi Report

Updated DYK query On 16 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nakdi Report, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
--BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP FYI

Hi Relata,

I was just over at WP:SSP and I noticed that User:B Nambiar (KBN) has opened a case on you at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Relata refero. I didn't see where they had notified you, so I thought I'd stop by and let you know. --jonny-mt 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Always something new. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message. I guess with the lack of respect that goes on and some of the hypocritical behavior that is tolerated at some places but not at others. I've been on this site at different points for a while, and honestly i've seen people blocked for lesser things than I have, but some people blocked for much stronger things. I know how someone in power should act, and with RFC's on an admin who tells people to "fuck off" "quit bitching" and generally moody towards others. all it's going to do is push people away. Today I learned about Citizendium. I think it may be a better place to be. Uconnstud (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] voting

voting commenced here. --Harjk talk 06:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on your discussion and recent edit of User:Bakasuprman, do you think that he is a sockpuppet of User:B Nambiar? If you doubt so, just tell me one word likely or not likely. Rest I will do. Awaiting for your opinion. --Harjk talk 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is likely given the acts of User:B Nambiar - User: Headmast ship is clearly a sockpuppet of User:B Nambiar.

I remember editing Marad incident [[11]] and User:Bakasuprman and User:B Nambiar were involved in discussion. I have no other evidence though for this case! Zencv (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nabob article

restored to your userspace here. ~Eliz81(C) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jawaharlal Nehru

Hello Relata refero. Thank you for your contributions to the article Jawaharlal Nehru. Today I was reading the article and I noticed that you made some good contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pov fork?

  • Religious harmony in India seems like a laughably biased essay created as as a POV fork of Religious violence in India. How are rogue articles like this normally dealt with? I imagine any worthwhile content could be salvaged and merged into the latter article. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, actually Religious violence in India deals with a kind of take to bits issues and shouldn’t be merged either-way. There are some assholes edited these articles Religious violence in India, accumulating forked stuff taken from harmony and somewhere else to violence. That’s the reason why I placed voting section and currently the voting is in progress. Based on the result, I will take an appropriate action. --Harjk talk 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Religious harmony in India is really a ridiculous article complete WP:OR and WP:CRUFT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case we don’t need harmony article at all and I too was thinking of it after I read the article. It should definitely be deleted. I do agree with Dance With The Devil and Otolemur crassicaudatus. Therefore I’d tagged Religious harmony in India to AfD. Let public decide about it. I request you guys to participate in the AfD discussion. --Harjk talk 08:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about modern Indian writers

Please see section 16 of Talk:Culture of India. I want your views. Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for participating in my RfA

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

[edit] Ravi Zacharias

I edited the Ravi Zacharias article per your suggestions. We're ready to get look at again. Thanks for your input! Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing paragraph

If you insist on removing the paragraph about Canadian tourist's reaction after returning from Tibet (which the backpacker's response was not repetitive nor found in anywhere else in the article), you'll need to ask for consensus in the talk page. The citation was fully attached and the article is from The Australian. There is no argument for you to removing it just because you feel it isn't necessary.--Sevilledade (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He reported with The Times about his opinion, I think that amounts to considerate significance. It would be interesting to hear from personal experience of tourist who actually experienced the event; sort of a first-hand experience from third party view.
You wouldn't want to engage in edit war. Put your disagreement in the talk page, if editors agree with your removing the information and feel that it is insignificant, I'll be happy to remove it. However, since it has already been on there, you'll seriously needs editors' consensus. Remember, this is how we solve disagreement.--Sevilledade (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The reference was already on there before you removed it. It should be asking for consensus and then removing the contents. I don't think it would be different than anything else that is already in this section.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote is cited as an "opinion". It didn't mean to be an eyewitness response (which there are several on the article). If you look over the article, there are plenty of statements of "opinion". Just not a single one is from tourist who experienced the event.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put a consensus section on the talk page about this since you still haven't done it yet.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

I see nobody has dropped by yet to remark on your closing statement at the Murphy DRV. Just thought that I should say - I didn't participate in the discussion - that it was pretty decent. An occasional step back to remember what we're doing is salutary indeed. (Plus I'm amused that after ChrisO's terrifying post on WP:AN it took the Cavalry, as it were, to step up and get the job done.)

Happy Easter. Relata refero (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir! I'm awaiting the backlash as we speak! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pipes

If you are referring to my comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ I am not objecting, per se, but noting a similarity between CAIR and CAMERA. As for Pipes and others each case has to be handled individually, and I do not know about that particular topic opine, unless I am confusing the target of your topic? -- Avi (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the current 1535 edits on Daniel Pipes I seem not to have even a single one. Perhaps you are confusing me with User:Avruch (again ) -- Avi (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
. Twenty-five lashes with a limp noodle. -- Avi (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(and supporting my next RfB - or is this canvassing, YOIKS!!!) -- Avi (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prabir Ghosh

FYI Abecedare (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Del/Kee/Neu?

about the comment in the AfD? please re-edit it properly with bold text in the beginning (I think you missed it ...if not, ignore). --Harjk talk 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

Relata, can you tell me how it was you found your way to the Hamas talk page, and to the thread in which I was commenting? Thanks in advance. IronDuke 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it "help"? Well, since you can't remember why you went there, I guess it doesn't. The reason I ask is that I some people have been following me about, which is not only very annoying, it's not allowed. I hate to hurt the feelings of someone like Aminz, for example, as he clearly admires my work and is eager to add his opinion right below my own, but I'd just as soon discourage it. Not saying you're doing that, but I did have to ask... IronDuke 00:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It may yet come to AN/I, although that is not my first choice. Generally, I like to discourage people from following me about "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." This includes following me in order to gainsay my talk posts. If it happens once or twice, I'll let it go. If it gets to be a habit, I'll take further steps. IronDuke 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Point well taken. I have found, however, that once I'm on record as saying, "Please stop following me" and the behavior continues, that's usually enough to get an on-the-ball admin to stop by the nascent stalker's talk page with a friendly reminder. IronDuke 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You've piqued my curiosity now. When has this happened to you? IronDuke 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I will say now that I indeed suspected this. You weren't exactly acting like a n00b. I take it you and I have never come across each other in the past, Master Po? IronDuke 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] glad to support

I'll be glad to support efforts about that group of speedy deletions of assorted criminals, at least for some of them, but don't have time this week to look for better sources. DGG (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Socratic Barnstar

The Socratic Barnstar
You deserve it! coz I think that you are an extremely experienced hands and influential in your arguments.
Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] howzat?

Any way, we would like to make it very clear that we have our comrades assigned to handle Wikipedia content and for sure they will see to it that it does not miss represent the party ideology. [12]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.110 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 Mar 2008

OK, I'll keep an eye on it. I presume the anon is worried about CoI. Relata refero (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PLA in Tibet

Hi. Since you seem to have a level head, and because you've contributed to this article, I would really appreciate it if you would chime in on Littlebutterfly's edits. He/she seems to see it as a patriotic duty to portray Tibetans as brutal and Chinese as heroic, which is bad enough, but his/her edits are also generally nonsensical. So far I've been the only one reverting them, and I am pushing my luck with 3RR. So, it would be great if you could help out. Thanks. Alexwoods (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on User:BirgitteSB RfA

In response to your and another editor's comments, I've added some links in my nomination to two of her peer-reviews that I found particularly useful. I think these show an excellent appreciation of what is needed to make a good article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles related to religious history/organizations in India

The user User:B Nambiar often makes unproductive edits to the articles related to the above mentioned topic. Also some suspected sockpuppets by him. Have you ever had anything similar by this user? Greetings - Zencv (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some days back I'd informed Relata refero about it. See the section voting in this page (scroll up). In my opinion, this disruptive chap contributes not only unproductive but to spoiling the system. It is definitely a deliberate attempt.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me informed, I'm sure a lot of people are watching his edits now. Hopefully he will cut out the unproductive ones. Relata refero (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to say/act something about it? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 9/11 Commission Report. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hot200245 (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suharto

Your edits at Suharto and your contributions suggest to me that you need to slow down and look more closely at what you are removing. regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? If that's the accepted academic figure, which it might be, get an academic source, please. Don't use partisan magazines that fail WP:RS, especially in the lead of the article. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You removed two references in your haste. Look closer at what you removed, and what I restored.--Merbabu (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
According to John Prados of the Natl Security Archive, the estimates range from 78,000, an internal Suharto government estimate, to over a million from Amnesty. Those figures should be in the lead, the details in a footnote. Relata refero (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and you're quite right, the Asian Survey is more than acceptable, and I should have been more careful. Note, however, that detailed footnotes in the lead are best avoided, and there really is no reason to put CounterPunch in there leading the footnotes. Relata refero (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NDF

Explain why the source is non RS, and that a claim of a source being non-RS doesn't mean removing sources that include information you don't like? KBN (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the source not reliable? KBN (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiche Maru sinking

I appreciate the vote to keep. It's not a typo. Yes, a lot of almanacs list September 28 as the date of the disaster, but it really did happen on September 22. Here's the September 26, 1912 newspaper article, the first mention I could find of the disaster, which had happened the previous Sunday [13]. Even taking into account the international date line, the Oshkosh paper couldn't have known about what would happen two days ahead of schedule. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Israel

It's been fixed. I had missed correcting a few of them. Epson291 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Dear RR,

Thanks for the comments on my talk page. I probably took a cheap shot or two at you earlier, or at least was a bit obstructive. I hope you understand - SamiHarris was a good editor - and I never had any idea he was related to anybody else. I really still do not understand ... Well, that's all water under the bridge.

I've had a whole series of attempts to do something with TA and related articles, some of them turned out a bit nasty - it's not an easy area to edit in. Please do your best, I'll be watching and will do my best if you need help.

Sincerely,

Smallbones (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /* Brahmin and dozens of related articles */

Look here[[14]] for my answer. VJha (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guru Granth Sahib

Hi,

Your removal of as sole successor of nanak and gobind singh.. is without any reason. The hindu deities are not recognized as sole successor (of whom?). The Sc of india recognized the granth as sole successor of sikh Gurus (petition was files by SGPC, and no property dispute was involved, just to clear matters), and also it is called The Grantha( large volume) , it is not a book, it is a large volume. Thanks. So, should i make necessary changes?Ajjay (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see talk and do the needful.ThanksAjjay (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seneca

Apocolocyntosis = "pumpkinification," as apotheosis = "deification." Le grand roi des citrouilles = "the great king of the pumpkins." A poor jest, I'll admit. Deor (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably did step over the line a teeny bit in the RFA; but people who find it necessary to argue against every single user whose opinion differs from their own really grate on my nerves. I prefer to simply register my own opinion and leave it at that. And LGRdC's remark was not just a response to my question; it contained a clear implication that my opinion was not "constructive." Deor (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If I started to worry about everything that's wrong in Wikipedia, to say nothing of the Internet as a whole, the men with the white coats would be at my doorstep in no time. I just try to do my minuscule part to ensure that a few things are right. By the way, have you actually looked at the article whose deletion is under review? It seems to me a clear case of "it's better to start over." That, in addition to my wikilawyerish objections to the reasons expressed by the nominator, is why I !voted to endorse the deletion. YMMV, of course. Deor (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
As I was the inititiator of the discussion, I cannot just let editors get away with voting in a discussion, because they want "in popular culture" articles deleted. Thus, I feel compelled to address such posts. And if it really is a discussion, then there should be dialogue and not just a list of endorses and overturns. To clarify my response to you... In the DR, you accused DGG of making a "slur" against another eidtor and wrote that to "assert that the opinions of the eight Wikipedians who thought that the article was worthy of deletion were somehow invalid seems to me disingenuous at best and insulting at worst." Thus, you made two assumptions of bad faith against two different editors in a row. You also wrote "by my count the !vote was 8 for delete and 2 for keep", but it is not a "vote", but a discussion, which is why the name changed from Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion. You wrote that there "is no evidence that the close of the AfD was faulty in any procedural aspect." An AfD in which at least (an investigation is ongoing on at least one other account from the AfD) three editors who were blocked for using sockpuppets disruptively in specifically "in popular culture" AfDs means that the procedure was indeed compromised, because we do not know what wait they were given. Then asking "so why are we here?" merited a response to explain or clarify. If you think my comment about you not adding anything constructive was somehow "incivil" it gets to the observation that in your posts you made two assumptions of bad faith, inaccurately referred to AfD as a "vote", and seemeed to miss the problem concerning multiple banned accounts who specifically used their various alternates in these types of AfDs somehow compromising the process. Then, you responded by alleging that "The main argument put forth by the nominator seems to be that he feels he didn't have a chance to bury that AfD in mountains of verbosity as he has done here," which is not accurate. My main argument is that the process was compromised by the disruption of sock accounts who were deliberately attempting to fix these types of discussions. My personal inability to participate further is a sub or secondary argument. Moreover, seeing a list of "I don't like 'in popular culture' articles" in the deletion review is naturally frustrating and I felt required a response. In a fair AfD not about process, I and others as Relata refero has praiseworthingly done would have focused more on finding sources and improving the article during the discussion as was done here. Finally, as a professional historian, who is in part interested in Roman history, bravo for the reference to The Pumpkinification of Claudius something I actually brought up in a lecture last quarter, of course, though, my username is only that of a king (roi), not emperor (empereur), but somewhat witty nonetheless! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

[edit] Speculation

Yes, you were wrong to speculate, you were wrong to assume bad faith, and you were wrong in your speculation. Category:Antisemitism belongs on articles that discuss Antisemitism in some way. Period. That is the only determinant of whether or not it goes into an article. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You assumed bad faith when you said "What would happen is that he would revert it, and then so would several other people in succession." First of all, don't speculate about me, period. That's not what Talk: pages are for. Second of all, it's bad enough you follow me around, and use half your comments to me to make insulting statements about me, but to compound it by making comments (like the one above) that are patently false adds insult to injury. Treat me with civility and good faith, and use talk pages for their intended purposes, per policy. And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. I hope that's completely clear. Finally, if I have time I will try to take a look at the article you mentioned, but I am quite pressed for time so I can't guarantee I'll be able to look. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I notice you didn't say that that would not happen. I note also that you don't need to assume bad faith to have that happen. Think about it - its exactly what happens when you remove a cat against consensus. I understand your sensitivity on the point, but the way to get over that is not to try and see insult when there is none.
Note further that "speculation" is exactly what Talk: pages are sometimes for. It is difficult to plan anything without attempting to predict what other individuals in the same project will react.
..half your comments to me to make insulting statements...:sorry, Jay, if you think they're insulting. But next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how. People will predict your behaviour based on your past, people working with you on a project will feel the need to discuss your probable choices and reactions if your editing schedule does not match theirs; you can't ban the latter, which is more than permissible, and changing the former will take more than a couple of messages ordering people around on talkpages.
I treat you with extraordinary civility, I treat you with as much good faith as I or any rational being could muster, and I don't see how stating a very likely response to a stated intent is not within the bounds of "Talkpage policy". I note that you have decided not to mention that what I was trying to do was determine whether you were being trolled or not, with a view to taking action if required. That determination is usually also conducted on talkpages.
And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. Jay, the whole point is that if your argument is valid, it need not always be used in your support. On the occasion I used it, it could effectively be used against material which you were defending passionately. (Even though you hadn't written it.) What I hoped to demonstrate to you was the inconsistency that some see in your behaviour, something which, without exception, all your fellow-editors here would probably like to see changed.
Thank you for your time, and do try and think about some of what I say.
Relata refero (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How much more explicit do you need me to be? If thestick had removed the Category from the article I would not have reverted it. Is that plain enough? Regarding your statement "next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how" - no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. It's an abuse of WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL, and I don't have to defend myself against statements that shouldn't be made in the first place. Discuss edits, not editors. And if it's a reliable sources or similar noticeboard, then discuss the sources in question, not other editors. And finally, regarding the "lobby argument", the relevant point is that "it need not always be used in [my] support", but that you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added to the Ouze Merham included a Chicago Times article discussing the controversy and the ABC interview discussing the award. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
...I would not have reverted it. I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct.
- no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? I see nothing in WP:TALK to supports that view that mentioning other editors in perfectly normal contexts is outlawed on talkpages? If that's your interpretation, perhaps you should cut down on some of your edits.
you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added .. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Except I used it in response to the statement "I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19", which constrained me to point out the number of those excluded by the Lobby Argument.
Jay, I suggest you admit to yourself, if not to me, that inconsistency is a bad thing, and that someone merely mentioning someone else (on-wiki) in neutral terms and not as an irrelevancy can hardly be a giant violation of our guidelines.
I am also interested to see that you think that reversion of the sort I thought it would be probable that you would perform is something you claim you would not do. Good, its a start. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct. Again, there's no need for these bad-faith digs. I have no "instinct" to revert someone removing the Antisemitism category. My edits are made with thought, and always with goal of making articles better comply with policy.
So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, - please do not resort to the Begging the question, it's quite disrespectful. I never made any such claim - quite the opposite.
your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? - well, to be honest, if you continually said complimentary things about me on Talk: pages, I probably wouldn't object. But in any event, use Talk: pages for their intended purpose, discussing article edits, not other editors. And use noticeboards for their intended purposes, discussing issues like reliable sources etc., not other editors.
Regarding the "lobby" argument, as pointed out already my arguments was that the secondary sources covered more topics than just the IHRC award, and therefore the article couldn't properly re-direct there. And if that was your point, then you could have made that point, rather than using obviously provocative language ("your well-known and extremely useful "lobby argument""). Your arguments should relate to policies, not other editors.
Regarding what I need to "admit", it's not actually relevant to me. On the other hand, I think you need to admit that using Talk: pages to make pejorative comments about other editors is inappropriate behavior, and that you need to stop doing it. That would be a good start. Please start now. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goldstein

A noticed a comment of yours from March 26. Has Goldstein been debunked? What has replaced his research? Tibetologist has been recommending Goldstein to me and I've been a bit skeptical. Longchenpa (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Talk:Zionism

I thought you added a lot to the discussion. BYT (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary of others. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Moral Reckoning

Hi Relata, were you still planning to do the GA review for A Moral Reckoning? Avruch T 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read them over, I haven't had a chance to respond yet in depth. I'm not sure how quickly I can address the concerns - it seems like superficially I could address them by removing the incorrect mentions of "favourable reviews" -- it doesn't seem like the article is weighted towards a positive view of Goldhagen or his book, so I'm not sure how I should incorporate your other comments. I'll read them over again and reply on the talkpage hopefully today. You can fail it if you don't want to have it hanging out there. Avruch T 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, and Moonriddengirl did a significant amount of work. Is the issue as you see it relating to the relative lack of response in the article from the academic community specifically? Most of it is from journalist publications and reviewers that aren't identified as academics. Care to comment on the changes in the article at the talk page? Avruch T 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see how that would be pretty frustrating - the other folks in that discussion seemed to be talking around the question rather than at it directly. Still, if you are curious, I would say the fact that it has been modified after its original submission to usenet (presumably not in a new submission to usenet) constitutes a re-publication, in this case one that should be judged on the merits of the author and its new publisher rather than the prior one. Since the usenet issue at least partly is related to spoofing, is it reasonable to conclude that TalkOrigins would have confirmed the guys identity before allowing him to resubmit a modified version of his original post? Avruch T 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I can has mop?
 Hi Relata refero! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again!
- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Noise? I guess I should be grateful yours was only one putdown. Noroton (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CP

Just a request, please look at the article Communist propaganda. The article defines the term "Communist propaganda" as "propaganda by communist leaders, states and political parties". But a source is needed to clarify the statement. I found no definition of the term "Communist propaganda" in google [15]. It need to be clarified if it is notable term enough or not. And please see the discussion Talk:Communist_propaganda. I will just request you to look into the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neo Fascism & Religion

Please can you kindly refrain from deleting whole texts or give a valid reason why the information provided is not valid. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinophilia

I was somewhat surprised to see that you added a {{prod}} tag to Palestinophilia, firstly because there had once been one and it says If this template is removed, it should not be replaced and secondly because WP:PROD states that Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate and any article with the remotest relation to the Palestinians is bound to be controversial. I would be delighted to hear your opinions on the matter, and I have not (yet) removed the tag. Thanks, Keyed In (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm slow, but what exactly is straightforward? Do you believe that there are no people who are pro-palestinian to the point of clouded judgment, or that the term is not accurate, or used, or something else? There was quite a discussion about this on the Talk Page the first time the {{prod}} tag was added (which I still don't understand why you replaced after it was removed). I still think we could use a discussion for consensus. Keyed In (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK now I get the issue. However, what about an article that describes a concept about which there is a neologism. The concept of palestinophilia definitely exists, and a word exists to describe that concept, so why should an article specifically not use the name that is most commonly used to describe it? The only thing I see to be done is to change the focus from an article about the word palestinophobiaphilia to one about the phenomenon of pro-palestinianism. Keyed In (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
But why pre-Herzl? Palestinophilia, in its common English usage, refers to sympathy w/ today's Palestinian groups and their interests. If you would like to suggest a merge with any of the "a lot of those under various names" that you mentioned, I would support it (though I would like a few examples of said articles). The term can then redirect there. I agree this needs some work, I just think PROD isn't the way to go. Thanks. Keyed In (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Redirect is fine, but I don't thin it should be to History of Zionism. Ghits seem to point to many, if not most instances being about the modern variety, such as "blind Palestinophilia, being soft on terror and jihad, defaming Israel," et al. I am not certain if another article is necessary, but there should be some relation between this term and this idea. Keyed In (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Google books may be better, but there are two considerations to consider. 1. Zionism has been around for much longer than the Israel-Arab conflict, so there are obviously more books written on the topic. 2. Due to Israel's horrible skills at hasbara (and perhaps to other reasons such as anti-semitism), people are less likely to write a book about a pro-Israel topic. Maybe a disambig page would be better. Keyed In (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. Maybe also see if other editors are interested in reaching a consensus. (I'm relatively new here so I don't know exactly how to go about this.) I would also like to add that it is a pleasure to deal with someone like you, to have a civil discussion without an escalation of feelings that unfortunately happens so often here. Cheers, Keyed In (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

I just want to let you know that the ancient Assyrian quote you brought up in dab's talkpage was very offensive and I hope you refraim from using that in the future towards other Assyrians. Chaldean (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the curious, the quote in question is Byron's Sennacherib. Which is a little absurd to be offended by. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I know where it is from, but it seems to me that you don't take other people's feelings into consideration before saying something. That saying has been used again Assyrians to justify the Assyrian genocide, in case you didn't know. Chaldean (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

About your result in third report, do please note that the user seems aware of 3RR. Did you intend the warning to make him aware that he was breaking rules, which seems unnecessary, or because you feel a warning would serve to end the edit-warring? Relata refero (disp.) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the edit warring has already ended (the article hasn't been edited in over 11 hours) so there's nothing to stop. Blocking or protecting wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Except it ended because they'd violated 3RR and knew it.... but no self-rvs. Just wondering whether that means that they would pick it up again when they got back online. Still, you're probably right, too stale. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbey Mills Mosque

Hi, Relata. The two main controversies were the size and the links to terrorism. The controversy about the links has been documented in its own section with multiple sources. i attempted to word the article in such a way so that the accusations and rebuttals are given the same benefits of the doubt, but I do not think that the article dances around the topic. I'd appreciate it if you can give me a concrete example so I can better understand your concern, and it may make sense if we continue this discussion on Talk:Abbey Mills Mosque. Looking forward to seeing you there! -- Avi (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project overlap

Isn't this WP Israel and WP Palestine's additional project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have just violated the three revert rule on the Nehru article. Either self-revert or you will be reported to the noticeboard.--Agha Nader (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. One of my reverts was removal of simple vandalism. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Watch

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --neonwhite user page talk 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What I added was sourced to an academic journal. Please examine the diffs more carefully in future, and at least read the edit comment, in which I said it was sourced to an academic journal. I don't appreciate templates on my talk page. Relata refero (disp.) 07:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
90% of the info was not sourced and included personal opinions and biased synthesis. This was not acceptable. --neonwhite user page talk 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD of Jennifer Lowenstein

Hi, Relata refero. Thank you for prodding me to dig deeper into my thought process on this subject. It turned into an excellent exercise in policy-sourcing synthesis. I have updated my opinion on the afd. Gwguffey (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ambitious university

i bit of topic, but i thought i'd share this with others; i came across the website of the Global Open University, Nagaland, a newly opened academic institution. [16] reads "The School of Language Studies of The Global Open University, Nagaland has been established with the main aim of preparing a competent cadre of young professionals in the areas of russian, german, japanese, arabic, korean, burmese, cantonese, portuguese, dutch, swiss, swedish, danish, greek, latin, armenian, italian, persian, syriac, turkish, bhasha indonesia, bulgarian, czech, slovak, hungarian, polish, hebrew, mongolian, tibetan, hindi, sanskrit, pali, prakrit, ao, konyak, angami, sema, lotha, phom, zeliangrong, kuki, chakhesang, pochury, chang, yimchunger, khiamniungan, sangstam, sumi, tamil, telugu, kannada, urdu, punjabi, sindhi, assamese, bengali, bajjika, marathi, oriya, gujarati, malayalam, dogri, kashmiri, manipuri, konkani, nepali, nagamese, bhojpuri, bodo, garo, khasi, maithili, mizo, rajasthani, santhali etc." quite impressive. --Soman (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

i have re-written the intro and added some content in Guru Granth Sahib. Would you take a minute, and go through it, so that i can remove the Inline religion description Template. I am going to expand and improve the article, in the best way i can, if you can point out the discrepencies to tackle, that would be nice. ThanksShalimer (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist propaganda

You might want to change your opinion there based on what I have just added to the discussion. DGG (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

Hi Relata refero,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [17].

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. BJP

Definitely with you on that. I may have to rip into that article. John Nevard (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] That Madonna Image on AN/I

Just FYI, they're breeding. There's now two copies of it, but both were denied speedy (clearly I write an unconvincing rationale...). I've taken them both to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_April_5/Images. It seems the other admins just took the flikr guy's word for it. Bazzargh (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ignore that - User:PhilKnight has nuked 'em. Bazzargh (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not just Barzun

Medawar, Cioffi and Crews, of course. Too bad none of them looked into "Religious Studies" -- outside Judaeo-Christianity, on which the Master himself held forth -- where "Freudianizing" (as one RISA-L denizen once put it) has found fertile ground. Just ran across this site. Enjoy. rudra (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a generic barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Keep up the insightful commentary, and don't worry about getting bitten. (But don't avoid wikibreaks if you feel you need one to recharge). Merzbow (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe Theory Noticeboard

This edit is in no way appropriate. Do not take your little story around to every noticeboard regarding the pages in question because it is only picturing you in a very poor light. I would ask you to please strike that comment, because it (the latter half) is completely irrelevant to the question asked. If you plan on jumping into these discussions, lets at least do it with some decorum. Baegis (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern expressed in your note, though I'm afraid I don't understand the last two sentences. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This edit is in no way appropriate. You are obviously bitter about not winning your argument for the exclusion of the Robison review of Behe's book. While anyone is free to edit any area of WP, if you insist on holding some sort of a grudge because of the previously stated incident, you would be advised to avoid these articles. Trying to purposefully steer editors away from certain articles because you had a bad experience is a poor decision and unbecoming of a wikipedian. Baegis (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I lose arguments on WP daily, because I only tend to participate when there are good arguments on either side and I might make a difference to the decision. So no, I'm not bitter about "losing". As I said several times in the course of that nightmarish experience, I wanted to include something similar to the review, I agreed with the review, and I am a supporter of parts of usenet being useful sources in general, so it would be particularly absurd if I was bitter. No, what I am is bitten, and as a wikipedian I think it is necessary that others who might venture into those waters be warned of the dragons. Not everyone has my easy-going temperament. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it also appears that you are quite stubborn and completely convinced that you are free from error. So, whatever. Just don't sully our articles with your poor attitude. I came here to give you a chance to correct a small mistake but you have decided to turn it into the same battle as yesterday. I do not think you are a bad wikipedian but your recent actions appear petty at best. I am not going to take the bait and argue further but I would ask you to please avoid these articles because you seem incapable of editing them without stirring up trouble. Baegis (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice the warm comradely sentiment with which you start this thread.
Thank you for accepting me as a not-bad wikipedian! I assure you that this not-bad wikipedian is not going anywhere near "your" articles. I am awfully sorry that my two edits stirred up so much trouble; I just want people to learn from my mistakes. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, don't let it grind on you. You're making a perfectly reasonable point. (I myself find it hard to believe that Usenet posts are necessary to provide criticism of someone so thoroughly critiqued as Behe.) Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WGI

You're popular! One Night In Hackney303 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't watchlist all of them earlier. Doing so now. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the embezzler is back then, being backed up by his little friend Counter-revolutionary. One Night In Hackney303 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd already added him as Sussexman actually, since that was the original (or there's a case for User:Robert I being the original) account. Lauder was actually the last sock created (that we know of). One Night In Hackney303 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
IIRC I added him to the list about, oh, ten minutes after the ban was finalised. No champagne was involved naturally..... One Night In Hackney303 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pushkin-Mickiewicz

I can beef up Dziady with Weintraub's The Poetry of Adam Mickiewicz, which also deals a little with its relationship to The Bronze Horseman. Unfortunately, the most I've got to hand on the latter is a shortish introduction to an edition of the poem - but even so, there's lots of info there that isn't in our article. Maybe you have more material. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"that treasure-trove of critical thought, Progress Publishers". Heh, heh. Maybe not the ideal source. I'm looking around on Google books. --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinophilia

I can't access my email at the moment. I don't have any major objection to redirecting it somewhere else (and probably protecting the redirect) as you suggested if some of the content genuinely is useful - the close I made was purely based on the fact that practically all the refs and Ghits pointed to it being a neologism. Black Kite 08:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Replied to your email. Black Kite 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have any interest in...

editing contentious BLPs? Could use more eyes. Thank you, as well, for passing AMR as GA. Avruch T 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks

...well, as it turns out your input was exactly what this section needed. I should probably apologise if I originally overeacted. But for a minute there I thought you were actually idealizing Fallmerayer's contribution and the importance of racial/ethnic continuity as conceived in the 19th century.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I 'd like to second that and say I am looking forward to more of your input on the article. As of now all your text is included in the modern and ancient section. Hope to see you soon. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

In response to your observation [18], Indians do in fact have a fetish with age, probably more than any other region. Not specifically referring to this case in particular but it frequently occurs in areas that I contribute to. Just ask User:Dbachmann and other editors frequently working in Indian-related topics. :)

DaGizza, some people of all cultures have some of that, I think... More on your talkpage in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grin²

I have been doing it for a while now -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Tibet

Someone has proposed a move back to the original title of this article. It would be great to have your input. Please chime in. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

[19] Best regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not NOR (and other boolean fallacies)

How would you improve Wikipedia:These are not original research? Feel free to improve away if you feel the urge. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete of Image:Parisprotests-olympictorch.jpg

I'm confused as to why you tagged the image for speedy deletion, entered an edit war over it, and didn't bother to discuss with other users about it at all. You tagged it for CSDI7, which is definitely illegitimate considering the reasonable fair use rationale given. You then said that it is one of the two images being used to illustrate the same incident, and that it is the second to be uploaded - both false. It is uploaded first, before I uploaded the other one, and they are two completely different incidents. It tells us how you didn't even bother to check for the slightest bit before you decided to tag it for speedy deletion and entered into an edit war over it. Pay some more attention next time. Herunar (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it says thay they are identical incidents that can't be told apart by looking at two photographs. Which kind of means the FU rationale fails.
As for an edit war, you're not supposed to remove the tag until the rationale is fixed. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm giving you some time to attempt to answer this question/update the rationale. If that doesn't work, I replace the tag. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
They're not identical incidents. Those are very clearly two persons. I can't see any doubt in this. As for BLP, comment on a living person is not the same as unsourced, contentious statements. Anyone can make a comment on a living person anywhere in the world. It's simply libelious material - say, if I claim he said something racist - that needs sources or removal. Herunar (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a disambiguation to both images. Nonetheless, I feel that it is completely necessary given the clear difference in background. Herunar (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mosley

  • [20] is this so complicated to go on the talk page first when there is a controversial issue ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

This comment made my morning. Ouze Merham, eat your heart out. Erm, maybe that's a poor choice of words, but you get the idea. <eleland/talkedits> 12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP links

Fixed the links, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for ur support in lifting my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

thx. Andries (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! The best thanks is to keep things neutral there, and to remember to be careful about RSes so as to avoid any further trouble. If there's any doubt, bring it to WP:RS/N for an opinion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk page topic ban lifting only, but it is better than nothing. Andries (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [21] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What if it turns out I'm a grumpy old bastard?
Well, lets give it a shot. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith

Did you confuse hadith on Jizya with Bostom for jizya on Dhimmi? If so, I'll strike my question, the thread is already pretty long. rudra (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Helpful Oldtimers

But I don't even know where to begin looking! Sarah777 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I was looking at your comments about this article over at AN/I - I've often thought that when an article has been so degraded that it needs to be placed in "special measures" - this means that it comes under the control of a small team of uninvolved editors and they are the only people who can edit it for say the space of a week. Their job is to bring to "version 1.0". Yes the POV pushers will return after a week, but the rest of us then have a version of what the article should look like that can be used as guide for further alterations. When an article is as far gone as expelled is, I'm not sure that otherwise it can be saved in the "normal" course of editing because it's just too big of a job while POV-pushers are constantly working against constructive changes. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

Check your mail, please, I think there was a transmission problem. rudra (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA...

Thank you...
...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerenetalk 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

I must say, how does this edit screw up the formating? —Chris! ct 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. —Chris! ct 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS

Can we discuss things on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Questionable_journals.? I think that Itsmejudith has a point, but at the same time, thinking about it, I can think of a lot of counter-examples that might need to be discussed as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Profitability

Please check Profitability. Is there an easy way to take care of this?

The anon reverter has a history of TA edits and a previous block for npa.

I've also answered you on the TA talk page. I'm very serious - there are no published quotes in any academic journal about any psuedoscience that say "{Any pseudoscience} is a pseudoscience." But there's lots of stuff that's quite close to that idea about so-called Technical Analysis. Oh, and the idea that TA doesn't claim to be scientific: what about the name itself - technical analysis?

Happy editing (and I hope some direct dialogue isn't taken for personal criticism), Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joan Robinson

HI RR. In chat mode, and going back to a message you left on my talk page a couple of months back. Did you ever read Ronald Meek's Studies in the Labour Theory of Value where he in a very friendly and scholarly way takes issue with Joan Robinson's reading of Marx and the classical economists? I found it really clear and interesting. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On SS and the Ignoble Savage. Before I had really learnt to edit properly I added the ref to Historical materialism, where attention to referencing is still needed - and the undisputed merge should be done too. Looking forward to looking up your links now. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I was just looking at the edit history in WP:V and realized my "please read the second sentence in the first infobox" was probably the wrong thing to say, people might think it was addressed to you instead of to Pedant. Sorry! (Standard disclaimer: feel free to reply here, or on my talk page, or not at all.) - Dan (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock farm

Thanks for letting me know. I half-suspected something like that was going on, but I'm surprised at the scale of it. I'm going to do a little more investigating; I'll post something to WP:AN/I shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism in Russia

Could you please look at the article Terrorism in Russia where misrepresentation of source is going on. The concept of Red terror has been included as terrorism in modern sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bhavishya Purana

Dear sock, may our tribe increase. Peace. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Policy" help, please

Context. How to handle a wikilawyer? You're better at this than I am! Advice appreciated:-) rudra (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you missed the ruckus. WP:FTN is in the loop, and we now have the usual sort of fringe-warrior alert. rudra (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not too late; you can still read the discussion at WP:FTN#User:Wikidas and join the discussion. I think this case illustrates how wikipedia is so much better at dealing with conduct and civility issues, than with users who habitually use unreliable sources, selective cite sources, or outright misrepresent them. Abecedare (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your FTN comment. If the editor simply follows your advise the whole issues will be resolved. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, that because you followed WP:5P your input into WP:FTN#User:Wikidas was very helpful and gave me a balanced view on the situation. I do not pretend to represent the majority, I just represent a particular tradition and culture that has place in WP. WP:COOL Wikidās ॐ 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RSN - UCLA study question

Relata, I posted a question to you at the end of the RSN discussion about the UCLA media bias study, but I think you most probably haven't noticed it so I thought I'd give you a heads up. I am curious about the particular weight being attributed to a, be it very prestigious, economics publication in regards to a subject like "media bias." I feel that what you wrote is so strongly worded that it lead an editor at the Fox News entry to claim that you had called this "the" study on media bias, on the grounds that it was published in one of "the" economics publications. What perplexes me is how "the" study on media bias comes to be published in such a publication as opposed to one from the fields of media studies, communications, political science, and/or other social sciences with more of a natural relation to public opinion and the production of culture. From what I can gather media bias has been a growing interest in economics, or perhaps amongst political economists of certain ilks--is that correct? However, from what I can also gather, other social scientists don't think particularly highly of these studies--studies exactly like this one which seem to be more about devising clever ways of measuring "anything" than really discovering how best to measure something in particular. Anyway I was wondering if you could address this issue on that RSN, since as I said, currently people seem to take what you said as an endorsement of the UCLA study as the unassailable word on media bias across the academy.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is quite a mess indeed on ANI, good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To satisfy my own curiosity could you also explain to me what exactly you meant by this: "I should add that it is also definitely true that this imperial notion of economics has been strenuously objected to, though it appears those who did have lost the battle." No need to explain this on the RS/N unless you were planning to, but I'm personally curious what you mean exactly. Granted I've only been able to get an assessment of this from blogs and/or various online forums, but from what I can tell outside of economics and political science, and inside the academy no such "victory" is visible. Do you mean that these types of studies, and the results they garner, make it into the press more often, however indirectly? Again, I'm actually curious here as I come from an anthropology, and less so cultural sociology, background. Thanks again.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. So this is particular to the Economics-Political Science continuum you were referring to. I seem to recall about a decade ago as an undergraduate that the rift between the "political science" and "political theory" people in the government department at my university had gotten so nasty that they had to import a department head from the psychology department. I think some of my confusion stems from the fact that I at least imagine the topic of "media bias" to span many other disciplines, well outside this continuum, particularly throughout the social sciences and related fields. In other words economics certainly has not taken over media studies, communications, cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, etc., but that wasn't what you were saying. Thanks again.PelleSmith (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Papa II

A tag has been placed on Papa II requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ziggy Sawdust 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about misplaced CSD

I just got the tools and haven't fully adjusted to using them yet. I'm working pretty fast and lapses in judgement happen occasionally, but I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for the heads-up. Ziggy Sawdust 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should slow down. Perhaps instead of trying to destroy the work of others, you should instead spend your time actually doing something productive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Papa II

Sorry -bad revert using the lupin tool. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1066

I take your point. But maybe you have better access to the books than I do. Have ArbCom made a decision today? I'd like to read it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have dragged you into the melee. When I need to chill I go back to Nabarangpur District or there are lots of French villages that would like to see you ;-) Itsmejudith (talk)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

Logging in late in the evening, I've just now noticed a post you made a couple of days ago.[22]

Hadn't seen that yet when I posted these later in the thread.[23][24] Let's talk; it looks like our wires have crossed. DurovaCharge! 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information, I posted a -- hopefully correct -- answer here.
NBahn (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Hi

Hi Relato, I read your message at Aadal's talk page. But, I don't have the context. Is it related to Chola dynasty? In any case, I don't have those books. Will try to ask my friends in universities to look up if we need anything in particular. I may not be online for another 9 hours, so I may not be able to reply immediately. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to see whether I can get those books. Will get back to you. --Aadal (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've access to Burton Stein and I'll have it by tomorrow or day after tomorrow. The other book by James Heitzmann - is it City in South Asia ? It is not yet available. The 1997 book, entitled, The Gifts of Power Lordship in an Early Indian State is also not accessible to me now. I'll explore other ways. .--Aadal (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try through my friends, but not sure if I'll get access to any of them. Thanks Relato. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] New Antisemitism

Thanks for the fix, deletion was unintentional. Shortly after that edit my PC crashed and rebooted itself. Just love Microsoft.--Cberlet (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badgering?

To address your concern, I simply asked if he realized that he was posting extremely personal information about himself that could be derived from the link. The rest is games and immature behavior where William asks what could be found in the link, and I provide the info. In the future should I just assume that any link that leads to personal information is perfectly fine? I know Wikipedia has a policy on protecting identities, it seems what has erupted from a single question addressed to William, and answered by many people that are not him, has all been in excess of what was required. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not email people I do not know, which is why if you look, the original posting is so vague, so William would know, and others would not follow, in case he choose to have them removed. I also did drop it, which is why I stopped posting on the page, sometime before yourself and another admin thought it prudent to mock me. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SRK biblio

Please feel free to contribute to this page: User:Goethean/SRKbiblio — goethean ॐ 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan - OEF

Found my way to this, browsing from Afghanistan. Chwyatt (talk · contribs) seems to have reorganized the "Allies" page in a less than optimal fashion. Best to look at his edit history for this, it's a mess. what with redirects, recreations, moves(?), and one redirect of a talk page to itself(!), which I reverted. I also left a note on his talk page. I'm not sure what was intended here, or if it had consensus, but I noticed that you had some edits there, so you're probably in a better position to sort it out. rudra (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can work this out:
  1. [25] new page created as retitled copy of old.
  2. [26] redirect old page to new copy.
  3. [27] created new talk page as copy of old.
  4. [28] botched redirect. (I've reverted this; reverting #2 would leave two independent copies of the same pages, modulo his additions to his new versions.)
  5. [29] link from article modified appropriately.
It looks like what he really wanted to do was to rename the article. But whatever the reason, his new versions clearly can't stand because they have lost the edit histories. And if the name change really is consensus, then his new versions will have to be deleted or otherwise gotten out of the way first. rudra (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right. It looks like this will need admin attention for the deletion: I'd suggest copy-and-pasting the above to ANI. About the actual content, after he made the move I gave up, as I really don't know what's going on. I'm sure there are some problems with sourcing, but I'm too intimidated by long articles with flags in them. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. rudra (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bombay Establishment

Thanks! Replied on Geogre's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref desk answer. Very informative! Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sangam

If you have the time, I'd be grateful for your opinons on Talk:Sangam#Are sangams a hoax? in re the wording of the first sentence. -- Arvind (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nair

I noticed that in your revert of Nair, you messed up the cquote, and in addition, seemed to have removed the entire Marriage section. This leads me to believe that you didn't actually look at your changes or see what it is you were reverting. Absurd comparisons and OR indeed? I guess citations aren't worth anything... I assure you that Nair marriages occur exactly as they are described in the article. So instead of engaging in a silly revert war, how about we address whatever concerns you have in the talk page? Thanks! --vi5in[talk] 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What was the rationale for adding all nonsense, crufts & monkeysms? I also reverted it because WP is not the collection of all ridiculous informations. You may take-off some time & read WP:NOT. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] oops

Sorry ... Ive added it to the next one Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papa II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
--Royalbroil 16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Before any more tags

You have crept into a quiet project which sometimes takes time to awake from its slumber - perhaps you have a particular view of the world - dear me is not much help - could you be so kind to go straight to the indonesian project noticeboard if you are going to have problems with a collection of articles - or at least venture into the talk pages and state your case - otherwise there is a smell of fly by tagging - thanks SatuSuro 08:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but as i said it takes time for the very few members of the project to keep up with things so a short notice of further tagging is in fact showing no agf - the project eds sometimes might not be on for a while - cheersSatuSuro 08:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not have to rely on projects to do everything; tags alert the casual reader and encourage her to contribute. Further, there is no deadline. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Further, you might want to drop the attitude edit summaries. No one is pretending these articles are perfect and we need extra hands, but looking down your nose on a drive by snark fest doesn't create a good atmosphere. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If they're bad, they're bad. Don't be protective or personal about people's opinion of articles you're involved in, this is a wiki. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The Indonesian project does not attract high quality well read (especially indonesian history) random editors - it is usually non english speaking indonesians trying to sneak poorly written and unsourced info in from the indonesian language wikipedia - the few editors who do the hard work usually rely on the indonesian project noticeboard to actually keep up with what has been brought up (like your comments) - so there is a point to take it there rather than the chaotic flow between your merbabu and I talk pages - it is a simple and quite obviously thought out process to bring this sort of thing where you have chosen a few articles to take issues with. It has nothing to do with own or anything like that alluded to - its simply a way of trying to alart the few others who otherwise dont know its going on - specially while it is in user talk pages SatuSuro 08:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, nothing to do with "own" or being protective. It's about showing some good faith and working with people in a productive manner, rather than uncivil edit summaries and useless article wide "pov" tags. Please give use something we can work with - even though we're already stretched thin.--Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you object to article-wide tags, as some people do, this isn't the place to argue that. You are not required to work on these articles, if you're stretched thin; I will be happy to excise the uncited material and replace it with cited modern scholarship at some point. I don't have much of an opinion on Indonesian politics, so you need not worry about my POV.
As written, the articles are unbalanced and most of the more judgmental sentences are uncited and unattributed. This isn't good practice, and it is not bad faith to indicate that in edit summaries. I seem to recall having come across User:Merbabu before, with a similar reaction. That is not the sign of a healthy approach. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for reminding me. You removed Robert Cribb as an inappropriate source for an article on Indonesia, and then got all huffy. Nothing more needs to be said. --Merbabu (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I removed a counterpunch citation, i think, and Cribb was removed in the process. And the huffiness wasn't started by me....--Relata refero (disp.) 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough - take it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and get it out of user talk pages - thanks SatuSuro 09:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, it really isn't considered compulsory to use wikiproject noticeboards..... --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Academic notability

I'm puzzled. After you tagged Janaki Bakhle I went and looked at what makes a professor notable. Whole bodies of work. origininal concepts htat are widely cited. stc. then I looked around wikipedia. Single episodes of Buffy the Vampire slayer have pages. Newly-published novels. Novelists with one novel out. Art-house movies. Really insignificant Hollywood movies get whole pages. Apparently every actor who has every appeared on screen and every player who has walked onto a major league field seems to have a page. But professors have this long list of qualifications. Obviously, I have a bit of an ax to grind. But hear me out. Professors write things that matter, even when those things appear exclusively in academic journals. It can be useful to watch the young up-and-comers. Useful for them to have pages so that when they pop into the news people can look them up. And hten there is the double standard. Professors are public figures. Why do one-game ball players get their own pages, and people like Bakhle who is doing work that people pay attention to do not? Can we talk about this?Butler stacks (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Butler stacks

[edit] Abbey Mills Mosque redux

Hello, Relata. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Peer review/Abbey Mills Mosque/archive1. I am trying to bring the article up to featured status, and I know you had some concerns. I maintain that evrything in that article is sourced six ways to Sunday (I started with it due to the Mosque's PR firm contacting m:OTRS) and I think that it's even better now than it was. However, it would not be fair to let ths go through without my pointing it out to you when I know you have legitimate concerns . See you there :) -- Avi (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marxism/marxism

You wrote extensively in a discussion on marxism and Marxism. I am wondering if you could possibly recommend some reading for myself, some one just wading into the pool. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I was trying to think of some favorite books, but with a topic this big, its hard to find one. Some are good in some respect but confusing and lacking on other respects that do not do justice to Marx. For me, I started with the Manifesto (still quite impressively condensed and I still get insight every time I read it), but then did the hard work of reading all classics written by Marx and Engles himself. A quote from Marx himself is apropos here: "There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits." Recently I decided to take a look at wikipedia's article, historical materialism. I made some improvements there last month, and now it does a decent job at explaining the basics of it (although I intend to go back to fix it up and add references in later, etc). But that might be a good place to start. Here are some links, too:


Feel free to ask me any questions you may have, too.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I just realized, that I Write Stuff asked you the same question, and I thought I was replying to him. :) I'll go leave this message on this talk page. Btw, thank you for your supportive comments on arbcom and elsewhere regarding Ultramarine's allegations. Its appreciated and I hope your voice of reason resonates as such.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Speedy deletion of Starting a wiki on wikipedia

Was a legitimate move to Jennifer Williams. Starting a wiki on wikipedia (created by User:MikeSmalls ) was the original name of Jennifer Williams. I just moved it to Jennifer Williams. Please see the history of Jennifer Williams. That's not a test edit. User Dœ αTΩC 19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, inaccurate rationale, correct process. Unfortunately we don't have a "test title" option. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academic bios

My assumption is that any academic at a major university with more than 2 books by major academic presses is quite possibly notable, as that is more than the requirements for tenure anywhere. Not necessarily notable--I didn't say that, but notable enough to require checking carefully for reviews and library holdings and citations and the other things that show someone's work is considered notable by his or her peers. I have deprodded these. I have tentatively not deprodded those with one book, unless I see something really significant otherwise. Two? that depends. Just wanting to let you know how I think as a preliminary screen. You might want to consider whether it isnt enough to remove the clearly non-notable ones. There is so much worse junk to deal with, and so many articles to improve that I'm not sure its worth the time considering the medium level. Your call about what you want to send to afd. DGG (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vivin's support on Nambiar’s thrust

Do you think that the rv is reasonable in Nair? It is noted that three editors including me and you are fighting against vandalism push by vivin & Nambiar. But Vivin, no way listening at all. Do you also think is there any consensus reached in talk pg on adding this nonsense by Vivin. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Watchdog

Please give your vote at Wikipedia:RSN#ihro.in if you beleive that Human Rights Watchdog is a unbiased organization.

Please remember that several number of crimes committed by Indian security forces in Punjab will go un-referenced on wikipedia if www.ihro.in is declared POV site. Reason this is among extremely few unbiased sources available online. Eventhough some of the north-Indian newspapers always published govt crimes in Punjab, but unfortunately they do not have this old data archived. For example, The Tribune (a 125 year old newspaper group), one of north-Indian newspapers does not have any online editions prior to year 2001 and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc did not have any online editions untill very recently. Also, India’s National magazine, Frontline does not have archive records prior to 1997.

Please read "Amnesty International", "Amnesty International, "Human Rights watch" where it says that "Thousands of mothers await their sons even though some may know that that the oppressor has not spared their sons’ lives on this earth. A mother’s heart is such that even if she sees her son’s dead body, she does not accept that her son has left her. And those mothers who have not even seen their children’s dead bodies, they were asking us: at least find out, is our son alive or not?" and "ENSAAF". As per HRW, Indian security forces arbitrarily detained, tortured, executed, and “disappeared” tens of thousands of Sikhs in counterinsurgency operations. Please remember, Amnesty International was not allowed to enter Punjab during these troubled times, hence Amnesty can not provide records of most of the crimes committed by Indian security forces as an India based Organization IHRO.

So please vote at Wikipedia:RSN#ihro.in ASAP .Singh6 (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan613 and socks

I saw the section on Thatcher's page there, was that "confirmed" tag in reference to this fan613 person, and if so does that mean they will be banned? I kinda had a suspicion that it was a sock of someone else, never heard of this "Evidence-Based" user til now. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw Fan613 show up at some of American Clio's "favorite" pages, I suspected it was a sock, but Fan613 has focused a lot on the Jewish theatre, which is an area none of the other socks had edited before.
160.39.35.32 (talk · contribs) is an IP that has been used by Evidence-based in the past. I don't know if anything can be done about a public IP. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
160.39.35.14 (talk · contribs) is an IP sock of Fan613. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bath Abbey GA review

Hi, On 9th April you put "This article is currently being reviewed" on the WP:GAC page entry about Bath Abbey. Although I didn't nominate this article I have done significant work on it & am waiting for reviewers comments so that I can help to improve it. I was wondering whether you are still undertaking the GA review and when you thought you might be making any comments?— Rod talk 12:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While I put the template on, intending to review it, I notice somebody else had already put the template on the article talkpage before me, so he or she gets precedence.. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand as on Talk:Bath Abbey there is nothing to say it is currently being reviewed.— Rod talk 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it seems [the offer to review it was withdrawn, but Redtigerxyz didn't update the GAN page. Thanks, I'll have a look at it in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RSN discussion

Hi RR,

Regards this discussion, could you provide a link to the actual EER citation that develops the ideas of the thesis? Alternatively, do you know the title and author so I could track it down? A journal article is a better source than a thesis I think - more accessible, more reliable, and probably more recent. Thanks, WLU (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Very useful context. I've added the K&K (1985) citation to the types of unemployment page. WLU (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again RR, I have one final question. Would you mind giving me an opinion on the following?

The imperfection of the labour market is sometimes graphically presented with a UV-curve, a hyperbolic or similarly shaped curve that shows a fixed relationship between the unemployment rate on one axis and the vacancy rate on the other. If the economy changes, the labour market will move along this curve. Factors that affect friction will shift the curve inwards or outwards. It is possible to derive this curve mathematically by aggregating (infinitely small) submarkets of the labour market, if it is assumed that these submarkets follow a probability distribution. Formulae have been derived for the normal distribution[1][2] and the Weibull distribution;[3] the latter has the hyperbolic UV-curve (U x V = c) as a special case.

  1. ^ P. Kooiman (1986), "Some empirical models for markets in disequilibrium", Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  2. ^ Kooiman, P.; Kloek, T. (1985). "An empirical two market disequilibrium model for Dutch manufacturing". European Economic Review 29 (3): 323-354. doi:10.1016/0014-2921(85)90044-3. 
  3. ^ (1983), "A family of market transaction functions", Foundations of Empirical Economic Research 1983/1, Rotterdam: Netherlands Economic Institute

Specifically, do you think the citations and statements found in the part in bold are adequate, do you see any problems with the citation or the text it accompanies?

My apologies for the vagueness, I'm trying to get an opinion based purely on the sources. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I lied, a final question - would this publication serve as a reference in addition to, or as a replacement? WLU (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi RR,
I promise you this will be my final post regards this, I just wanted to follow-up to be sure this hadn't slipped through your busy talk page. If you have read it and would prefer to not provide an opinion then thanks for your attention and I shan't bother you about this again. WLU (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sex symbol

Copied from User talk:Aditya Kabir:

Avoid the phrase if your only sources are random articles from the cinema section of regional papers, please. The phrase means something specific with sociological connotations, and in other film articles is placed only with care. Remember that some Indian papers tend to use phrases without that much care; for example, I can google pretty much every major female Bollywood star and discover dozens of references calling them a sex symbol. That basically renders it meaningless and unencyclopaedic based on that quality ref. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That may not be the case with Riya Sen. In most, if not all, films that feature her the focus is on her physical attributes and provocative actions, and that by critiques' judgments. Her public persona, which is bigger than her film success, comes very much from the fact that she has a big draw in popular media as a sex symbol. I have tried not to cite insignificant sources, and the regional papers you mention are some of the world's largest circulating newspapers in English.

It is a commendable effort to expunge the very word "sex" from the intro, but it doesn't conform to the reality. People like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield will always be regraded as sex symbols, and that isn't necessarily degrading. The word has been used carefully enough, as the article has gone through a long process of scrutiny, reviews and edits. There still are kinks in the article, but "sex" is not one of them. If you have any concern about the appropriateness of the sources, you may state that. I promise to improve upon your suggestion.

Thanks for putting that note to my talk page. A lot many experienced editors are not as courteous. I shall be even more thankful if you could go through the article in more detail. I have high hopes for the article (working on it for so long), and every help will be highly appreciated. I again promise to be good and respond to all your suggestions as best as I can. Unfortunately removal of a mention of "sex" in this case would probably be unencyclopedic, as it would not reflect neutral and verifiable facts. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

O I see! You met the article in the middle of long trip that took you to the articles on Rakhi Sawant‎, Sonal Chauhan‎, Urvashi Sharma, Sunny Leone, Mallika Sherawat, Aarti Chhabria, Parizaad Kolah, Niharika Singh, Preeta Rao, and Nandita Das. I can perfectly sympathize with your exasperation and the somewhat unexplained and unwarranted edit summary ;mdahs& "yeah, yeah, they're all sex symbols" (link). Seriously, you need to judge the article on its own merit, not a context of other crap or whatever. Let me assure you that the use of the word "sex" in the article has been given a lot of thought already, and that by multiple editors. Now, if you don't mind, I would prefer to put back what you took out of the article. If you want them to be really removed, please, discuss first. We wouldn't want a silly edit war on our hands. Would we? Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Updating now. I have put back the sex comedy bit into the intro to have something specific to say abut all three notable films (year of release, maker, genre and language). But kept the sex symbol bit out of it. It seems to be a bit too much for the lead section. The request to review the article is still on, please. I know my copywriting skills are bad, and the last time someone from the LOCE took a look lies way back in the past. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dalai Lama, China, etc.

This is to acknowledge your memo about the edit war. I was disappointed to note that you did not leave similar messages on the talk pages of Binguyen and Yunfeng.

I also wanted to ask about the comments you left at WP:ANI. It appears that you want to restrict the editing of Wikipedia by Chinese editors, or the use of Chinese sources. I was surprised, because I have seen your comments on other talk pages and they generally seemed reasonable. I have concerns here about systemic bias, a problem that I have noted on several occasions. I have seen comments on other talk pages arguing that Xinhua and other Chinese media are not WP:RS, because they are controlled by the PRC. On the other hand, English language press are controlled by powerful private investors, most prominently Rupert Murdoch. If I were forced to choose, I think I would be more likely to trust the PRC than Murdoch to give me unbiased information. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that since the last time I edited, other editors have attempted to add sourced criticism, which has been immediately removed without explanation by Yunfeng. It seems abundantly clear that the article has a neutrality problem, so may I ask why you removed the tag? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be appropriate for you to warn Sunray about edit warring, as you warned me. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD G4

Hi Relata, just wanted to let you know that the food related articles such as Pique verde boricua that you tagged for CSD under criteria G4 were incorrectly tagged. The AFD'ed version was a recipe and was rightfully deleted, but these recreated stubs are merely descriptions of the food (acceptable food stubs) and thus G4 doesn't apply. Thanks! ~Eliz81(C) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, I made the apparently erroneous assumption that a recreation of all the articles deleted at an AfD last week, by the same newbie user that created the first set, were likely to be recreations in content.... what a joy it must be to be able to see deleted revisions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Jin Jing Article

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zhenqinli_reported_by_User:Oiboy77_.28Result:_.29 as you were an editor on this article your input or comments would be invaluable. Thanks Oiboy77 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jin Jing, once again

Hi, could you have a look at my proposal at Talk:Jin_Jing#Proposal_to_keep_the_article_as_is and weigh in with your opinion? Thanks, Novidmarana (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bath Abbey

You've had a tag under Bath Abbey at WP:GAN since April 9, but a review was never placed on the article's talk page. Are you planning to review the article? If not, can you remove the tag so someone else will review it, and we can get rid of some of the GAN backlog. Thanks. Nikki311 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See above, #Bath Abbey GA review. I have read it once, and will make a further statement in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Tour

G'day relata - and I hope you're good... I'm just catching up with the Rosalind Picard stuff that seems to have been going on today, and thought I'd drop you a note on a related matter; I think this article is unbalanced, but am unable to edit it because of an arbcom sanction preventing me engaging with 'BLP's in any way.... your thoughts would be most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

in fact - the existence of Category:Signatories_of_"A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism" is in many ways problematic to me.. I think I'd be allowed to discuss that further, and regardless would be interested to see what you think.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
in the spirit of continuing to bother you with un-asked for work, I thought I'd ask one more favour! - the talk page at the picard article contains 4 boxes at the top relating to the IPs the subject used, and referring to User:Moulton who ran into hot water at the article and was subsequently banned, and it's also contained within the category 'notable wikipedians' - none of which makes much sense to me, and I have a feeling of disquiet around the possible political angles (which I mention without the intention of prejudice, not really having examined the situation fully - it's just a thought) - your thoughts would be appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If the arbcomm banned Privatemusings from BLPs, wouldn't that also include requests for meatpuppetry? At the very least, you should know better than to help someone evade an arbcomm ban, shouldn't you? Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Evade? How? He asked me to take a look. Take it to WP:AE if you think its ban evasion. I'd look forward to them banning Lar, Alison, Guy, and a ton of such people. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
He's asking you to edit articles he is forbidden to edit. It sounds like ban evasion to me. Your replie - "other people are doing it too!" and "Take it to AE!" don't sound like someone who is acting in good faith. If someone is banned from BLPs, they are banned from BLPs. By helping them work around that ban you are undermining the ban. Ruleslawyering isn't the point. The fact that what you did isn't technically bad enough to invoke sanctions from the arbcomm shouldn't be your only motivating factor. The spirit of the ruling matters as much as the letter. And I'm not some silly child who runs to the "grownups" every time I see someone breaking the rules. I thought you were responsible enough to appreciate a "word to the wise". Your response says otherwise. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:BAN, OK? Come back when you know what policy and precedent in this area is, and not when your argument is based on what it sounds like to you. Sheesh. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Rules apply to Guettarda and not to you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Sigh) Would you care to explain that? It really doesn't make sense in context. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

If you don't want to be constructive in your comments, at least be civil. Guettarda (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I am unfailingly constructive and civil. Perhaps you'd better point to exactly what you mean. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, your comments at the Picard article are insulting, rude and unconstructive. I can't stop you from being unconstructive, but I'm asking you to lay off the insults and uncivil behaviour. It might be a nice change. Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Guettarda. I beg to differ with your self-characterization.--Filll (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear me, they appear to have got worse between comments 1 and 2. Could you point to which, of those, perhaps? Even one? The one where I hinted darkly at your CoI would be OK. Or perhaps the one where I called either of you a sockpuppet. As for unconstructive, any of my points that rambled on about motivation and the history of the page without discussing particular points of the wording. That would be fine! I'd revert myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy

POV problems spanning (at the time) fifteen months. At the time, I felt that stubbing was the only way to present a neutral and sourced article. Sceptre (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI (came to post about sthg else, saw this). If you look back at the history of Reddy a long time ago I had to remove huge chunks of BLP violations. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Consider this a civility warning. I have had my fill with your rude and insulting behavior. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I never, of course, need a civility warning, since I always keep civility in mind. For a detailed response, see this. May I point out that Raul is in no position to threaten someone with blocks when he is in dispute with them. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sci dissent from Darwinism

Hola,

Were I you, I'd add the external link that sources the statement as well as the original statement as well on BLP/N. It's useful for the people reviewing I think. I might also include a link to the wikipage for SciencBlogs, as that's more context as well. I would normally do so myself, but you asked that others not comment on that page and I agree that it's in the best interest of a neutral commentary. You're not obliged of course, but I think it's a good idea. WLU (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thomas Kuzhinapurath

You have edited the article Thomas Kuzhinapurath and deleted the external link to the Italian article. Then you added it: Thomas Kuzhinapurath along with the categories. But it doesnt appear with article. Is it improper to have an external link to an article in another language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Cheakkanal (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. 202.164.132.70 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namecheck in an AN thread

I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorje Shugden

Following your note on WP:FTN I waded in but it is like wading through treacle. I can't rv to the last good version coz none of them have been any good. What can most quickly be done? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I just came down on an editor who suggested forking to a controversy article, telling him it would be a POV-fork. I know a bit about Buddhism, nearly nothing about the Tibetan variety. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be at least one good quality academic source, the one quoted at tedious length in the article. I'm sure something could be written up sticking closely to that. I have proposed a simple structure with the description of the deity and its veneration first followed by each side of the controversy. Would that life were as easy as that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amartya Sen

Under heading Amartya Sen addressing the seminar on "Education in Kerala's Development: Towards a New Agenda", read the 8th paragraph. You will find the word 'Hindu' in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnistus (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that since they asked him a question regarding Hindu right, h probably is a Hindu. Additionally, you can find in other articles and on his Wikipedia page, his dislike for Muslims. So that means he's non-Muslim - therefore most likely a Hindu (or a slight chance of Atheist).Agnistus (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famines

Hi there, Could you give me the names of the papers of Bagchi, and others? I probably won't reply on the BR page. Too much headache. Plus my family is getting upset: I was late in feeding the cats this morning! But thanks for your clear replys! I might ask questions here from time to time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I went back and looked at Sen's book Poverty and Famines and also at some papers it is based on, but couldn't see what connection his main thesis (that famines are entitlement failures) had to do with the Raj. He does of course analyze the reaction of the Raj in 1943, but there is really no discussion of the 19th century. Also, his model of exchange entitlements explicitly assumes a monetized economy, which much of rural India was not in the 19th century. But maybe I missed something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

User:Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Good catch

Thanks for putting the time into finding those links. It just seriously frustrates me that core articles are barely referenced and have serious issues and so much fuss goes into something because the shoe size of a source compiler used as a reference in articles isn't listed. Priorities seriously need to change around. In the time wasted in discussing that tens of core articles could have already been made up to a bare minium referencing standard. But I'm certain the issue still won't rest whatever we do Dear Lord!! Buenos Noches ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Abhilekhvirdi

I see this user has returned after his block and is continuing to make disruptive edits without any discussion on the talk pages or edit summaries. I have warned him again, and will block him again if he continues. I note he used an IP account while blocked too. I keep an eye on him, but you got to him before me this time. --Bduke (talk)

[edit] Your thoughts?

Thanks for clearing up the BOI matter. But I see at RS talk that you are still interested in the more general matter of citation arguing for reliability. I've also been worried for a long time about well meaning editors adhering too strictly to arbitrary Wikipedia-centric pseudo-objective criteria and interpretations of criteria for sources etc. I wrote a long post last night on the citation matter.[30] , at the bottom of the first break section, "54.1 break on Boxofficeindia.com: special invitation for broader input." I'd be very interested in your thoughts, especially if you could expand on the history of "being extensively quoted elsewhere" being a criterion of reliability here. The only ones who seem to have seen it are Blofeld, and Shahid, who called it looong and liked it, but said it was misplaced so no one would see it - I guess he was right, I was very tired when I was done. John Z (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend cross-posting it to WT:RS. I'll join the resultant conversation there--Relata refero (disp.) 07:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Tollywood -> Move

Hi there. I noticed you moving the Tollywood page to Telegu film industry. The language is Telugu and the industry is Telugu film industry. I tried moving to Telugu film industry, but in vain. Can you please do the needful? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] educational publisher in Kerala

Hi, I think the tags are in place in these articles [31], [32], full of weasel, substandard stuff. What do you think? You removed some tags earlier. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw this just now. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I reverted Uzhuthiran's edit beacause I dont find anything wrong about it. It has been edited by many. About Santhosh George K (space tourist & Sancharam author), the article was created due to high media attention & in fact, he is a well known person in Kerala. I don’t know why User:Rashtrakooda and User:Uzhuthiran is talking about COI. Every article is created with a kind of COI by editors. Sometimes a national, regional or religious COI might be the reason (For eg. I am primarily interested creating articles related to well known persons/companies/music artists in Kerala since I am a person from here). We can’t blindly charge editors for that. I also think that Relata refero's revert was correct & requesting User:Uzhuthiran to listen to the rationale. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Let’s hope there aren’t many protected pages that need copy editing, but when they come up, you can count on me. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have no idea what you think is a parody, however

You might look here. I had earlier versions still I believe.--Filll (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My talk

Haha. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your request

Posted screed to wt:rs. Regarding the other matter at RS/N:

Our organization has carefully examined and discussed your request in the appropriate committee We regret to inform you that this must be our reply:

NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOO. WAAAAAAAHHH I doan wanna I doan wanna I doan wanna (running around in circles, flapping arms) NOOO. YOU ARE A VERY BADF MAN. You can't make me You cant make me Im noty afraid of yuou NO NIO NOThat is A VERY BAAADD PLACE. MY MOMMY wioll get YOU fior this!!!!!

What the heck, added to my watchlist, #1,678.John Z (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Passage to Freedom

I've fixed teh things. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPPP

You are being recruited by the WikiProject Political Parties, Emphasizing consistency, global perspective, and neutrality, the WikiProject aims to create good articles about political parties worldwide. Join us!
--Soman (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Bradman

Thanks! Incidentally, you may consider archiving some of this page... it's getting quite long. --Dweller (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. How are you getting on? Unfortunately, no I don't have access (I'd never even heard of it until just now) Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ah well

So sensible! Xn4 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrying

That was quick. Were you watching the game, or did you use your purported paranormal powers to see that PK before it happened? Heartbreaking. MastCell Talk 03:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Facebook

Hello. You gave your support to the FAC of Facebook a while back. About a week ago, I reviewed the article and found troubling sourcing issues (as well as prose issues, but those are less salient). While the nominator has been active on Wikipedia the past week, he has not made an effort to address the issues I raised. Would you mind revisiting the article in light of the sourcing issues I've raised? BuddingJournalist 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm finally beginning to make some headway at Bradman's PR. I'd like to bowdlerise (sp?) User_talk:Dweller#Bradman to the relevant PR. I hope you don't mind. Please keep an eye on the PR a) in case you feel I miscontrue your comments and b) for my (eventual) responses. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland

You know I agree wholeheartedly with the siteban, but isn't it a bit early to mark the thread closed? Less than 24 hours after it began. Dissent is inevitable, and I'd rather not give any an excuse to cry "lynch mob" or lodge procedural objections. DurovaCharge! 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that this has taken up a lot more community time than it should, and I don't think that any of those who objected earlier are likely to turn up to either continue objecting or to apologise. Sam Korn, for example, who's on arbcom-l and was the first to object last time, has been active on the noticeboards, and would have objected by now if he intended to.
That being said, if anyone who disagrees with the ban comes here to object, I think I will undo the closing, to ensure it sticks. I just didn't want it to turn into a bait-the-banned-user-and-those-who-backed-him festival.
I'll also hold off adding him to Wikipedia:List of banned users, which I was just about to do when I got the orange bar... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Although the prospect of any change in consensus may be remote, I vowed after my own arbitration case to speak up for fairness and give editors who were facing potential sanctions a reasonable chance to defend themselves. Doing so has long range benefits:
  1. When an editor needs to be shown the door, they leave with less discontent if they know they've had a voice in the process.
  2. When an editor abuses the opportunity of defending themselves, their own bad behavior is easy to block/revert/delete and the example makes the community's decision simpler.
  3. Sometimes consensus does change as new information comes to light.
  4. Since political animals exploit any exploitable precedent, giving a fair term for rebuttal in every case makes it harder for wikipoliticians to railroad a good editor off the site.
Best regards, DurovaCharge! 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think those are all four excellent points, with which I completely agree. It does appear that this one is going to die quietly, which is a relief. As I said, if anyone wants to say anything reasonable to add to the conversation, I will certainly de-archive it myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on DL by Living Buddhas

This discussion started 10 days ago, and no one has opposed that section on the talk page. So, please state your objections. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC FAC

Relata, I appreciate your (and many other reviewers) frustration and exhaustion, and had hoped to avoid a restart (see User talk:Raul654#FAC followup); a brief summary of outstanding previous Opposes is needed to render your Oppose actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuck. What shall I now do?

I had nominated 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra at WP:GAN. Sadly it failed the nom as the reviewer felt it was a POVFORK. Now I do not seem to know what should I do? What changes should be made to article? Can it ever attain GA status? I would be glad if you could guide me. Thanks. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

... for your last edit to Holocaust, that was careless of me. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, these kinds of things happen some times.--Caranorn (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics

Please provide some insight to the inane discussion on Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi about the name change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tl|cherrypicked

Thanks for mentioning cherrypicked. I added it to WP:TC, hopefully it will get some more exposure. It looks like the perfect template for POV edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] do not redirect

Do not redirect the article to Caste system among christians, since it hardly makes sense. it is like redirecting a "catholic" article to faiths in christanity. Moreover Roman Catholic Brahmin is a valid community in south-west India with ads in matrimonial sites. Please help in expanding it rather that redirecting it which does not make sense. --Gururaj 007 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:talkorigins, BLP issues, and self-published sources

We've gone though this about Talk:Origins, and this, comment on work, is considered acceptable. Check the archives, the consensus was that it wasn't a BLP issue. Note that I was arguing against that use, but was out-shouted.

– You

I looked at the talk page and don't see any archive...could you point me in the right direction? ImpIn | (t - c) 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:VP Singh.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:VP Singh.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJTalk 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hindu

Hi there, can you please comment in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits. A recent edit war is started in the article and I am bordering 3RR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)