User talk:Akhilleus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:38, 14 February 2008 editSMcCandlish (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,793 edits →Article recovery: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:14, 14 February 2008 edit undoMegistias (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers13,567 edits →Could you?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:

	Could you please move the deleted ] to ]? The material in it, while certainly not notable enough for an article, might make a good short section at ]. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)		Could you please move the deleted ] to ]? The material in it, while certainly not notable enough for an article, might make a good short section at ]. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

			== Could you? ==

			::Could you contribute with your opinion here? .Thankou] (]) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:14, 14 February 2008

Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five six seven (May 2007) eight (June 2007) nine (July 2007) ten (Aug 2007) eleven (Sept 2007) twelve (Oct 2007) thirteen (Nov 2007)

Doug's back

I've already reverted Boccaccio-inspired additions to Sappho & reverted somewhat more boldly at Ascent of Mont Ventoux. I wonder if you might be able to have a look at Liber sine nomine to see if any of the plagiarism you identified before (i.e. from Zacour) has been reintroduced. But he's been busy, so this is the tip of the iceberg. Wareh 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through everything and started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. As usual with Doug, please do not take the fact that I let any of his work stand as suggesting that it does not harm the quality of the encyclopedia. Wareh 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the time to help with this. The additional user account used entirely for sandboxes gives some insight into Doug's absence and sudden reemergence with this flood of new material. My AfD is getting a cool reception, but at least some good editors will discover from it some articles that need major reconstruction. Wareh (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus (name) disruption again

Hi - I noticed that an user you've blocked earlier for disruptive edits on this page is back.

It looks as if the same user is editing information about himself, I have quarreled with him before about this, so I'd not like to interfere with his other pursuits. Thought you might like to know. --Alvestrand 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Got tired of watching his haranguing on Talk:Jesus, so I blocked him for 2 weeks. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock block question

Akhilleus, there's a question about somebody you blocked back in June. See . Would you consider doing a 1 sec block on that account to mention that the original block was flawed? The user says she has been catching flack ever since. I take no position on the merits and am only expressing a desire to end the controversy once and for all. - Jehochman 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I think the message you left should help, but if you could also do a 1 sec block that should catch anyone who goes to my block log and misses your message on my talk page. Regards. Kelpin (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Serena (porn star)

Is it possible to conclude the dispute on the page . It has been initiated 6 months ago, and has probably already reached its maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loner1979 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

I noticed you participated in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Doctorates

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Misplaced Pages. It has been mainly developed for Misplaced Pages administrators however if you have done lots to keep Misplaced Pages on "the straight and narrow", including bieng members of different groups which help Misplaced Pages i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very greateful ifo you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in Egyptology

Dear Akhilleus, you deleted this article. By any chance could you email me a copy of it or userfy it to my userspace? I would like to use it for class purposes. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

--Filll (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of articles

Why don't you add new articles to the "Definition" page of the Waterboarding article? There is a numbering system there. Editors have been adding articles in several other places, but I believe the "Definitions" page is the most logical place to put them. Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the page I linked just a few lines above. It has a count of sources, which seems important, and was created for this purpose. Badagnani (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a good summary of Witzel

Well, yes. The only alternative is to point out that Witzel accuses Frawley of being, in order, "amateurish, naive", having "a simplistic approach", not "getting his history right", and "obvious misinformation", concluding with: "just as his philological expertise, Frawley's historical acumen is seriously lacking" and "his use of "material evidence" suffers from the same type of shortcomings, notably, a lack of scientific background reading and from misreporting." Really, I have no idea how to put all that on te page. Relata refero (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Your remarks on the lead are beginning to sound like mine. My intent could be summarize here. It is not to create a promotional piece but a NPOV encyclopedic piece. I would be seconding your suggestion. MoS is not applied well. Many of my admonishions are based on that. My view on Pseudo are well summarized here. I'm afraid I am misunderstood. I am not a true believer. Anthon01 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have at least 3-4 sets of diffs that lead to, by my own initiation, consensus improvements to the article. My comments are often unpopular but in the end I am proven to be right or mostly right. Here is one example. I get accused of being a true believer but its not true. The accuracy of the articles is important don't you think? Anthon01 (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. Cheers. WP:PSCI Anthon01 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)

You commented on this earlier. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI suggestion

You had made a very valauble suggestion in ANI regarding India/Pakistan related editors. Here is a possible . It takes time and Admins who are willing to truly be neutral and a stickler rules for it to work. We had at least 5 of them who made it happen. Taprobanus (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SF Weekly

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't had ti me to do much more than skim the first page, but so far it has all the earmarks of a hatchet-job, aimed at Griot while pretending higher motivations, on behalf of the pesty sister of the reporter -- the only surprise for me, really, is that the reporter admitted the relationship upfront.

I'll read it in full later, and I suspect I'll be drafting a response to the journalist's editor filling him/her in on things. --Calton | Talk 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please

Hello could you see to this.::User Arditbido tried to change pageChaonians by using original research and his own interpretations of it.Then User:DragonflySixtyseven tried to remedy the situation that had escalated to an edit war with me and Ardibito by remaking the page but now its full of even more original research and the dozens of secondary sources are ignored with no reason and are on the talk page.I want the page restored to its original secondary sourced statenormal state.The talk page is full of secondary sources but they are being ignored and the page now looks very bad to say the least.Megistias (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article recovery

Could you please move the deleted Carrom Dron Award to User:SMcCandlish/Carrom Dron Award? The material in it, while certainly not notable enough for an article, might make a good short section at Carrom. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you?

Could you contribute with your opinion here? talk chaonians.ThankouMegistias (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)