Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 15 August 2012

XENOPHON 333: My prior edit on the talk Xenophon page got cropped at the bottom few sentences during an edit. After an initial "SAVE," the system didn't seem to allow me to make "insert" changes without having to retype the entire text. I meant to say: "I don't see why one would get so exercised over correction of a minor typo..." and "Finally, let's call it quits without making indictments either way..." Thank you for your indulgence with my typing. Regards, XENOPHON333

You are making some good points

You are making some good points at talk:Xenophon. However given the current climate at the talk page there I would rather refrain from commenting further. I hope you understand. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. K: Do I understand that you don't want even to try to format/rewrite the proposed edit to your own satisfaction, thus satisfying, hopefully, Montanabw, and resolving this contentious matter in a productive way? As between you and me, you are obviously far the more qualified to format the edit according to Wikipedi standard protocols. That's all that would be needed. If I do it, as I wrote, I fear that it will never be accepted by Montanabw, for one ostensible reason or another, whereas your revision would almost surely be approved. Please consider acting in this fashion so as to resolve this pending problem. I still hope for all's well that ends well, but don't see

how that can happen if you bow out. Are you deferring to Montanabw for some reason I should know? Is he "senior" to you as an editor? I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Misplaced Pages editorial staff, etc. Best regards, Xenophon333 108.14.212.113 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Xenophon. As almost anyone who has been here for any period of time knows, there is no seniority on Misplaced Pages and no deference is implied by not getting involved. I simply do not think that at this time the discussion is evolving well on the talkpage but I would prefer if I didn't have to elaborate further because I would like to avoid criticising anyone. Δρ.Κ.  00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. K: Thanks for your considerate reply. I recognize that the discourse has been unpleasant with Montanabw, but you would not need to "criticize" him or anyone else if you would simply try your hand at reformatting the proposed edit using your expertise as an established editor at Misplaced Pages. Once Montanabw agreed that the edit was in at least reasonable shape, according to his lights, however mercurial, then I would be pleased to resume contribution by working with you to "finalize" the edit. As I have written, however, I don't believe that my attempting to reformat/rewrite the edit would be either well received or practical, compared with what you could produce. Moreover, I certainly would defer to your discretion in reformating/rewriting the edit as you saw fit. Please give this solution some serious consideration. Otherwise, I fear that all our work (to which Montanabw ostensibly defers), including as well prior work with Montanabw (such as supplying the URL's, and other revisions made at his request) will be sacrificed. Again, best regards, and let's hope you can salvage the situation to Montanabw's satisfaction in a way that I believe I could never do. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Xenophon you make some eloquent points so unfortunately I have to elaborate further, even though I stated that I didn't want to. It is precisely because of my experience that I refuse to participate in a discussion under such an arrangement. In a collaborative wiki environment such as this there is no final arbiter of the edit in a talkpage discussion. In the vast majority of cases all participants discuss the merits of an edit equitably and propose versions until a suitable one is agreed upon. It is not acceptable to have a number of editors discussing things while others are sitting on the sidelines as judges. This distorted geometry is unacceptable in a collaborative environment such as this. I have explained this to you because I respect your efforts and intelligence but I would have preferred, and still do, not to be drawn any further into this. Δρ.Κ.  06:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. K; Again, thanks much for the correspondence. I appreciate that you do not want to work "for" or "under" another editor, such as Montanabw, but it is he who has engineered this awkward "geometry," as you put it, by casting the two of us as "folks" who have agreed upon a "consensus" (in which he declines to concur substantively!), while at the same time he casts himself in the role of procedural doyen, expecting either you or me to reformat the proposed edit to his satisfaction. I recognize that this entire situation represents the very height of chutzpah, or temerity, but I was looking for some practical way out of the dilemma in order to salvage all the effort heretofore. If you do no see a way towards reformatting the article, then you must appreciate that I am in an even less advantageous position -- actually, very disadvantageous, being far less experienced in Misplaced Pages protocol -- relative to you in this regard. I, too, do not see how I could work effectively "for" or "under" Montanabw subject to his whims and pseudo-technical criticism. Too bad it has to end this way. In any event, please know that I really feel that I learned a great deal while working with you in researching and revising the proposed edit, which I truly performed in sincere and good faith. Respectfully, XENOPHON333 108.14.212.113 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 108.14.212.113

Thank you Xenophon for your kind comments about me. I too hold you in great respect for your grace under difficult circumstances and your tenacious efforts toward improving this encyclopaedia. I hope you don't get discouraged from this experience and that you will continue to contribute. In fact I hope we can meet again in the future. And who knows, not everything may be lost, even in this difficult case. Another editor may arrive at the talkpage and the geometry may improve. I'll keep an eye for such an eventuality. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  07:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. K: And thank You for you kind words about me. As you may know, Hemingway famously said he admired his own characters for their exhibition of "grace under pressure." Your saying that I exhibited "grace under difficult circumstances" is just about the nicest, and most meaningful, thing anyone has every told me about myself... Anyway, it's meaningful to me. I really do hope to contribute again, and look to rise above this unfortunate event so that it does not poison my attitude toward Misplaced Pages in general. After working with you, moreover, I well appreciate the importance of using as much of Misplaced Pages's protocols as I can endavor to follow. I did try to do that in this case, but it seems that no matter what I did, it just wasn't, nor ever will be, good enough for some editors. To me, that seems to elevate form over substance, and to be, as the proverb goes, spiting one's face by cutting off one's nose. And I was indeed was taken aback at the vituperative tone and vindictive attitude expressed with regard to my sincere efforts, however they may have fallen short of Misplaced Pages's objective, idealized format. I didn't deserve to be excoriated and denigrated the way I was; the other editor could just have said, kindly, "thanks XENOPHON333 for your endeavors. Please reformat as best you can, and we editors will take it from there." Instead, I got the impression of being subjected to a truly malevolent spirit that precludes any hope of working together any further on this project, at least as things stand now. Maybe a Deus ex Machina editor will indeed descend upon us and rescue the situation from its current impasse! Hope to work with you again as well. Best regards, Xenophon333 108.14.212.113 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Xenophon for your kind words. Your comment about Deus ex machina is very apt and made me smile. Hopefully this god from the machine, should he materialise, may yet provide a resolution to this editing tragedy. Best wishes. Δρ.Κ.  16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I am still baffled at the true motivation for the forces that produced this fiasco. Can it have been just "sour grapes" as I had remarked? This seems a horribly petty reason, but I am at a loss to fathom any other realistic motive; or perhaps, it was just an editor's over-defensiveness of his role and perceived prerogatives. Anyway, best of everthing to you too. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to this conversation. I think you have completely misunderstood what I have been saying (over and over again). You have been very unkind in your comments about me, and you obviously have failed to read WP:AGF. Allow me to explain myself. I have two interests in this article: 1) Xenophon's contribution to horsemanship, and 2) Proper[REDACTED] editing, in line with WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:CITE. To that end, I don't have any stake in the outcome of a discussion of whether Xenophon influenced Alexander the Great or not, if he did, great, add it into the article, but within the context of the article being a basic overview of Xenophon, not a specialist paper. (In other words, this whole discussion probably warrants, at most, a short paragraph in the article). BUT add it PROPERLY, not in a huge wall of complicated, convoluted text with improper[REDACTED] citation formatting that is not going to be comprehensible in the article mainspace, which was what started this whole discussion. Indeed, to some extent, "Please reformat as best you can, and we editors will take it from there" was close to what I thought I was saying, but frankly, you are a long way from anything close to reformatting -- and I am not going to read a huge wall of text to figure it out for you. I'm not "malevolent," I have 3000 articles on my watchlist, and I simply am sick and tired of cleaning up people's messes and massaging fragile egos. My point: Learn to edit according to the[REDACTED] guidelines, then go edit wikipedia. Be ready to have others edit your work, and learn to do it even better. Montanabw 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nothing if not trying to be forthright about this matter, and I felt you should be apprised, in all fairness, of the dialog on this talk page for you to have a procedural opportunity to be heard in your own words in response as you saw fit. However, as to substance, please understand that if Dr. K is loath to reformat the proposed edit under the current "arrangement," or "climate," and "distorted geometry" -- whereas under usual Wiki "collaborative" efforts, all editors are "discussing the merits," and there is "no final arbiter," and none "sitting on the sidelines as judges," as he says -- then surely I, who am certainly not an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, am all the more loath even to attempt to satisfy you as the self-appointed editing doyen who, in my opinion, has denigrated my (and by extension, Dr. K's) efforts. Having in effect "poisoned the well," as I see it, by derogatory and sarcastic remarks in general, I don't see how either I or Dr. K can proceed in the manner you now suggest. I suppose what we have here is a classic "failure to communicate." It happens. Perhaps there will be a next time, and we can then all start over on an even footing, without being burdened by the discourse of the past. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr K reverted your article edits, not me, I only was trying to be of help. If he's willing to mentor you in proper style and format, that is fine. But[REDACTED] has it's own rules and protocols, I'm just the messenger. If it wasn't me, it would be someone else. I am sometimes too blunt, but I WAS actually trying to help. Montanabw 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. K has stated unequivocally, supra, that he is effectively NOT willing to assist in mentoring me in style and format, as you put it; for this reticence he blames you, and the posture he feels that you have assumed in the "distorted geometry," supra, of this entire matter, with you "sitting in judgment on the sidelines" and not participating on the merits, much less as to style, contrary to the usual "collaborative" Misplaced Pages manner. I leave this Wiki dispute between the two of you, both highly exerienced Misplaced Pages editors. What you ask of me is counter-intuitive in the circumstances and impracticable, as compared to Dr. K's trying his hand at an initial re-editing of the proferred material, at least to some degree and in some form. So let's leave this matter in limbo, where, as I said, the dialectic has driven it. (I appreciate your belief in your assertion that you were "trying to be of help" -- but Dr. K is not willing to follow up with the use of his well-honed editing skills at all, because he says he is uncomfortable with working with you in the "climate" and "geometry," supra, that he feels exists, and my Wiki editing skills are, by far, less adequate than his, since this is my very first proposed contribution to Misplaced Pages, and I don't feel that I could EVER satisfy you in this regard.) Finally, I stand and rest on the entirety of the record. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I"ll let Dr. K take up any issues he has with me directly, I have no real dispute with either of you other than to cool the drama and just write something that passes muster with WP:MOS and WP:V with WP:RS. Simple. This is wikipedia, learn to use it, like all of us here already did. I've given you a lot of good advice and links to helpful articles, if you want to learn, you can. Montanabw 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate that I rest my case on the entirety of the record; and since Dr. K is loath to perform any further editing whatsoever in the "climate" and "distorted geometry" of this situation, supra, I am all the more so. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)  ::: Congratulations! I came as a first time contributor in good faith to Misplaced Pages offering a significant bit of knowledge of which both Dr. K and Montanabw were unaware, and the result I got was to have my efforts quashed with snide sarcasm, later disguised under the would be veil of "technical" criticism -- which, in any event, Dr. K was in a position to rectify by editing, being an long established editor, infinitely more so than I, but studiously declined to do so, because of what he said was the "climate" and "distorted geometry" of the editing process in the wake of Dr. K's comments on my proposed edit. So now NOTHING is going to get done. Again, congratulations, Misplaced Pages! 108.14.212.113 (talk)

Oh grow up. All we asked was for you to follow the rules. Do you also hold your breath until you turn blue if your teacher grades your paper with red ink and gives you a C? Montanabw 22:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was an Ivy League Phi Beta Kappa with a 4.0 Average. -- What were you? And you most certainly did not, according both to me and Dr. K, just ask anyone "to follow the rules." (BTW, there was, and is, no "WE" involved in that asking here -- on the contrary, you, and you alone, "asked," as you say, for what you say you asked for: Dr. K, or anyone else, was NOT involved in any manner; just the opposite, Dr. K firmly disassociated himself from your conduct, and declined to participate in the editorial process under the terms you declared by fiat.) Moreover, instead, of "asking" me or anyone else to "follow the rules," you began by denigrating my proposed contribution (e.g., by calling it mere "gibberish," when it was not, and indeed had not been so characterized by another editor, Dr. K, with whom it had been produced pursuant to a dialectical process, so that it is unfair, ahistorical, and snide now to call it "gibberish"), as the record indelibly relfects (much to your consternation), and that remains the case no matter how you may now subsequently strive to air brush that history away by seeming to be oh so technical and reasonable. Your sour attitude was noted by all, and you are now trying to fly under a false flag. In this regard, and especially given that I am a would-be first time contributor, I am certain that NOTHING I would do could EVER meet with your approval. Further, Dr. K still refuses to contribute anything whatsoever to the editing process precisely because of your conduct, as well as the "climate," and "distorted geometry," of the editing process that you have contrived, for he, like me, does not intend to subject himself to your editorial sniping. Dr. K wrote to me that that's not the Misplaced Pages way, to have one person do the editing to the exclusion of others who sit back and criticize from afar on a peremptory and unilateral basis. If you had had a collegial bone in your body, you would have offered to work together with me and Dr. K to produce a final edit. But no, you preferred to judge others from Mount Parnassus.108.14.212.113 (talk)

Actually it WAS incomprehensible, wordy gibberish, and most of what you have written above is blathering verbiage. If you really are a 4.0 from Harvard (which I doubt, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but for the purpose of argument, I'll pretend you are), that would explain why you are not capable of writing like a normal human being, but must go on and on and on to be sure we all understand that you are terribly important. All I have ever requested (at times with sarcasm, I will acknowledge because I find you really annoying, pretentious and whiny) is that you write according to wikipedia's guidelines, plain English with a source. i.e. "Xenophon influenced Alexander the Great " which you clearly have no interest in doing. So please, just go feel superior now, I've never stopped you from editing, I've only explained how you are supposed to edit. But you don't have to listen to me, just do your own thing and watch what everyone else does if you ignore all the rules. Montanabw 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Too bad, although your prideful and petty ego had difficulty accepting a person's word, and couldn't refrain from gratuitous invective, I really, really, AM a Phi Beta Kappa, 4.0 from an Ivy League College (I didn't say Harvard, so how did you know? I guess the quality shows); and you didn't speak with "sarcasm," but with venom, derision, and contempt. Moreover, Dr. K didn't say that what I wrote, while working in response to his successive queries, was "gibberish" -- YOU did, mister, possessed of all your full-blown haugthiness. I told you once before that you must have been getting away all your life with demeaning people in a condescending and vituperative way, BUT THAT THIS STOPS WITH ME... Tough, huh? I guess you just can't cope with being told off about your cross tongue and bitter attitude. (You should know, BTW, that I find you abusive, degrading, and preachy. So we're even, at least.) Neither Dr. K, as he as written at length, nor I has any intention of working under your hegemony. That's NOT the Misplaced Pages way, as he said. And what I wrote above were thorough, precisely accurate, carefully documented facts (regarding, inter alia, what Dr. K did, or didn't do, in response to YOU doing YOUR "own thing" -- putting everyone else down) based on the written record, obviously much to your consternation, I see. (Also, I'm sure Dr. K will be pleased to know that my citation of his decision to withdraw from the dialogue with you, given the "climate" and "distorted geometry" (his words, not mine) of the situation you created was regarded by you, along with the rest of my response, as "blathering verbiage.") Since you don't appear to have a decent bone in your body, and lept to attack my work product as produced in the form generated by dialogue over time with Dr. K, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to be able to discern that that work product was not written in telegraph style for final print -- sure sign of an embittered, frustrated little mind, and petty tyrant of an editor all too eager to prove his indispensibility. No one works with a nasty editor, regardless of substance, anyway. (Also, as to substance, I don't believe that Will Durant's insights, e.g., that Xenophon "unwittingly" prepared the way for Alexander, nor those of the various other sources, are reducible to a single sentence, as you appear to propose, although I realize that you are no respector of true scholarship, especially when you didn't research it.) In any event, I am flattered that you appear threatened by my academic credentials. BTW, you didn't answer my question: what was YOUR academic standing, and in what school? (At this point, that's a just a rhetorical question, for I really don't care to know any more at all about you; I already know too much. In other words, I'm through bandying words with the likes of you.) Finally, fella, you need to get or stick to a real life -- being a Misplaced Pages editor just isn't cutting it for you. 08.14.212.113|108.14.212.113]] (talk)

Oooo! You sure demonstrate a classic example of Psychological projection. Delightful. Clearly, for someone who has been here about a month, made one article edit that was reverted and since then has been doing nothing but raving on talk pages it's obvious that you have no interest in listening to anything but the sound of yourself. So please, allow me to bow out and end this fruitless discussion, as clearly, you already know everything. Montanabw 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tu quoque. If only you concede that you know nothing, except the sound of your own imperious, high-handed, puerile, pop-psychology, know-it-all voice. (I didn't know you had a degree in Psychology). Again, mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa, O infallible great one. What a desperate cop-out act by you... Pitiful, especially that you can't, and didn't, even attempt to refute what I wrote ... I hope Dr. is K is amused. Lest you forget, you certainly succeeded in shutting down and alienating him too, a well-experienced Misplaced Pages editor. Congratulations, again. You can be proud, proud. I realize that for you this is what it's all about, isn't it: your "ego defense mechanism," since you're now indulging in what is supposed to pass for psychology. BTW, all I claim to "know," mister, is what I've painfully come to know about you. Also, rather than "raving," as you allege, any objective assessor, I believe, would more than likely perceive that my writing has been carelly honed discourse quite specifically tailored in direct response to your scurrilous remarks.108.14.212.113 (

I'd leave and end this conversation, but you are far too entertaining. I'm starting to really enjoy how easy it is to bait you. Montanabw 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're a crypto- (well, perhaps, not so crypto-) sadist, too. Actually, a sado-masochist since you're getting far worse than you're giving, my friend. All one has to do is read the record and chuckle at your juvenile dodges and devices. And cop-outs. You entertain me too. (Of course, you didn't succeed in "baiting" Dr. K; you just scared him off the case -- intimidated is the Harvard word, FYI. I don't get intimidated however. That must be a new experience for you.) 108.14.212.113 (talk)

I am tired of your ad hominem personal attacks, as you clearly cannot even read the directions for basic[REDACTED] editing. So how about you learn how to do basic[REDACTED] editing and formatting, read the rules, and quit arguing with people who started out by trying to explain things to you (and getting frustrated in the process when you attack their good faith). When you have over 40000 edits to wikipedia, as do both myself and Dr. K., do come back and let us know how you are doing. Dr. K has chosen to not engage with you further, I have a little more determination to try and instruct people about the error of their ways, but you clearly aren't listening, so given that you appear to be simply a Crank (person), have a good life. Montanabw 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrongo. It's YOU and your reprehensible conduct that Dr. K chose to disassociate from, and it's YOUR despicable actions, including "ad hominem personal attacks" (as I noted at the time), which were all too transparently disguised as technical criticism, and that caused him to refrain utterly from participating further in the editing process -- because of the negative "climate" and "distorted geometry" he wrote that YOU created by your implacable invective against ME. (Dr. K even wrote that he was watching and waiting for another, third, experienced Misplaced Pages editor to enter the fray, and so displace you from your solitary perch, which would then, Dr. K wrote, enable him to participate again in the editing process without being subjected to your unilateral judgments that are in violation of Misplaced Pages custom and practice.) Obviously, you are still vainly striving to misrepresent the record and generate revisionist history. But I continue to stand on the record as Dr. K and I wrote it. And if you indeed had made as many edits as you proclaim, you should have been graciously willing to assist me, a would-be first time contributor, in making the edits you say are required here, instead of subjecting me to ridicule by "putting me to the test" in a defiant and recriminatory way as you did, with virtually no chance of EVER satisfying your standards, as was inevitable. What an editor... As I wrote before, no one is willing to work for a nasty one. Good riddance. 108.14.212.113 (talk)

And lest we forget, as your selective memory apparently has, Dr. K wrote generally that I had made "some good points" in this, my Xenophon talk page. So he does NOT support your views. Moreover, Dr. K "chose not to engage" further -- as you so delicately put it -- because, as he wrote, of YOUR hostile presence, a sniping critic on the wings, which he stated was contrary to Misplaced Pages custom and practice. The truth is embarassing, huh? Is he a "Crank"? And why do you continually cite Misplaced Pages articles in support of your talking points -- can't you think for yourself without a crutch? 108.14.212.113 (talk)

P.S.: Be advised (not that I really believe you're actually interested in substantive facts cited, as usual, in Blue Book format anyway, however), the American Philological Association has stated, in an article available on the Internet, inter alia, that "...Alexander surely had knowledge of the Anabasis, which served at the very least as an obvious military inspiration, when one considers his march east across the Tigris (Green 1970)." 143rd Annual Meeting Paper Abstracts, "Learning kingship in the pages of Xenophon: Alexander the Great and the intersections between the literary and historical Cyrus," by Jennifer Finn, at p. 1, para 2. But be my guest, put that, too, in your dumpster for "gibberish" and ""blathering verbiage" -- just know that Misplaced Pages is the one that suffers from your desperate machinations, not I. 108.14.212.113 (talk)