User talk:JBW/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aiko Climaco: proposal for deletion

Archive January - July 2009

Thanks, I guess I look at Google hits not as stats, but as an indication substance. Granted one has to review the Google listed articles to assess the validity and applicability of the hit. Probably my own prejudice. I guess what I am saying is I agree with you and thanks for pointing out where someone might not see my madness. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place rewritten

Hi, this article has been rewritten, if you could please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place to see if your concerns have been addressed. If not I would be happy to address any outstanding issues. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 10:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place

Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: You comments in the Andrew Pace discussion

If you have comments to say about me, please say them to me in a forum in which I am able to respond. And please check your facts before you accuse me of "removing prod tags without giving any reason" and "arguing to keep articles in ways which suggest a lack of effort to determine the facts". I do not remove prods in-mass. I research every article before I will remove a prod. If you check the facts you will see that in every case my removal of a prod is supported with either improvements to the article, and/or a reason for removing the prod.

It is every editors right to remove prods and be involved in discussions. And the vast majority of the time my rescue is validated and supported by the wikipedia community. In those instances where a rescued file goes to AfD, the vast majority of the de-proded articles are kept by consensus.

I am clearly editing within the rules. I am not breaking, or even bending, any rules. The nuisance editors are those editors who prod notable and valuable articles without first performing even a most basic check to determine notability; or worse, those editors who tag articles with a prod for the reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Esasus (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I appear to have annoyed you. I do not understand why you feel that I made it difficult for you to respond to the comment I made, but if I inadvertently did so, I apologise. Anyway, you have responded now.

I did check the facts before referring to the fact that you remove prod tags without giving a reason: you have repeatedly done so, as, for example, in the case of Chronicles of Ramlar on 28 February 2009, and in the case of Tim Cotterill. You may well have had excellent reasons for doing so, but you did not state what those reasons were: that is what I meant by "without giving a reason".

As for "a lack of effort to determine the facts", I think your attempt to save the article on Andrew Pace is a clear example of this. It did not take me much effort to establish that (a) the article in the form for which you removed the prod was a confusion of two different Andrew Paces and (b) the original form of the article was a hoax. Other editors came to the same conclusions.

As for your assertion that you are editing within the rules, my whole point was that you are, and that this is taken by many Wikipedians as meaning that there is nothing wrong with it. I was trying to convey to DreamGuy that his attempt to get action against you is probably futile. There is no need to persuade me that you are acting within the rules: that is what I was saying. However, while I recognise that you are acting within the rules, that does not mean that I have to agree with the way you act, and I see no reason why I should not say that I disagree on those occasions when I do. There is no reason why we should not express disagreement in Wikipedia: there are many different opinions, and expressing disagreement does not need to lead to quarrels.

Finally, I quite agree with your criticisms of how some other editors behave. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Angel Taormina

Why have you got a copy of the Angel Taormina deletion discussion in a sandbox? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough I can't remember. I'm sure I had a reason at the time, but I have now deleted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Galerie Walter Klinkhoff

Thank you JamesBWatson for your constructive advice. I appreciate you taking the time to guide us in the right direction as opposed to simply deleting it.

Sincerely, Geajc1951 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hemules

Hi! Saw your comments on [Hemulen]. Being Swedish myself, I have obviously never read the Moomin books in English translation. But here is what I wrote on the discussion page:

The translation "one Hemulen" is apparently incorrect by the English translator. It should be one Hemule, several Hemules, Hemuli for the speices. Cf Heruli. "Hemule" is a Swedish adjective, meaning reasonable. "Hemulen" is the definitive case.

Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's best not to meddle with Latin forms! Anyway, the confusion probably stems from the fact that Hemulen (with capital H, IIRC)was first used to refer to a single character, whose name was later extended for to denote an entire species (hemuls), when Tove Jansson wished to reuse the bureacratic, obsessive character type.

But I suppose that the Wikipedia page simply reflects the established English translation, so I am uncertain whether it should "improve" the nomenclature, pointing out that the translation is somewhat ungrammatical. All the best, Sponsianus (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

:Hi!

Your impression about Tove Jansson's style are quite on the spot, AFAIK. She regularly extended personal denominations (in the definitive case) into species, in the infinitive. The Fillyjonk(s), the epitome of female nervous hysteria, is another case, and of course the Snorks. In fact, all these "species" seem to be mostly extensions of character traits, sometimes exclusively for one sex, as there is no mention of more of for instance Grokes as a species in general.

These distinctions are difficult to preserve in an English translation, as it's quite ugly to begin a personal name with "the". You could hardly translate the direct address "Hej, Mumintrollet!" into "Hi, the Mumintroll".

Tove Jansson's Moomin "world" is not consistent one jot, as characters appear and disappear and names change meaning. Then why should it be? The books are so different. The series starts as entertaining children's books with a slightly melancholy streak, "The exploits of Moominpappa" stands out as some sort of picaresque novel, while the later works gradually evolves into stark, teutonic existentialist works.

PS Have you seen her hilarious illustration [1] of Gollum? All the best, Sponsianus (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked to the image itself, which you can't access directly, apparently. http://www.zepe.de/tjillu/hobbit/s/085.htm should to the trick. All of her Bilbo illustrations are there - they are quite suggestive, but she hasn't got a clue as for what Tolkien's characters should look like. The elves have horns! Sponsianus (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (populated places)

Cynics will argue that it just shows I'm a historian by training and therefore prejudiced towards historical information. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Chabad spellings

I have lived in quite a few coutries of the world. Habad I have seen (France), Khabad not. Where did you see it? Debresser (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I confess I think that was a mistake, and so I have deleted it. Thanks for prompting me to think again about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wadi Al-Rummah

The link you removed from Wadi Al-Rummah is pay site, true, but it has reliable info that cannot be found anywhere else in english, im mainly translating arabic work, and im looking for sources in english and references now, if arabic sources are not accepted, and this is the only available info in the web in english, I should get a phd for it :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by YousefS (talk • contribs) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact of its being a link to a paid-for article is not actually the main point. The main point is that the article referred to is about a particular piece of research work on a specific point concerning Wadi Al-Rummah, and does not add any information of a general, encyclopedic, nature about the subject. As for the lack of sources in English, I quite understand that you must feel a sense of frustration, as you feel you are producing a legitimate article, but are not able to produce the required sources. However, is the lack of sources in English because the valley is not notable enough to warrant coverage? I do not know enough about the subject to be sure, which is why I have not proposed the article for deletion. However, nothing I have seen so far suggests notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind reply :) im not sure about most of the rules, and this tip is really helping me when contributing some info. im doing my best to contribute something well known (like Wadi Al-Rummah) but is not available in wikipedia. I found many references in english mentioning the valley, but not in detail, and the study I have provided have gone through specific details in english and thats why I have thought of listing it (like the length and the part of it buried under the sand dunes). It is also a well know geographical part of the middle of arabian peninsula and i used to go camp there at spring when it flows and vegetation starts in the desert. It is also rumored for being a river in a past geological era, and it looks so when it flows when rain falls like I remember. All in all, it seemed like a valid subject to me and I hope its going to find some clicks. And about notability, the valley can be noticed from a far distance from satellite (you can see google maps satellite view between medina and brydah) its 600km long and is quite wide and looks like a river. you can notice like its running under the sand dunes then emerging on the other side, quite interesting if you are interested in geology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YousefS (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the last link i added a while ago talks very briefly about the river, and states that "There is little pattern to these remains of ancient riverbeds" then mentions "Wadi ar Rummah" first, please note the slight difference in spelling. i hope this gives some secondary reference to the subject, otherwise, i think i still can find other references around to mention thisYousefS (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your query at Talk:Lunarcrete

I have replied to your query here. Cheers, A v N 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Faizaparedes

I removed the edit of User: Faizaparedes and your correction to the article Name of the Philippines, because of here. Anyway, thanks for your correction but I still removed it because he inserted a historical hoax (I suppose). ^_^ --The Wandering Traveler (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was actually doubtful about the authenticity of the information, but I was short of time and didn't spend time checking, but thought at least if the information was there it could be cleaned up. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of vandalism

Hi - no problem - we all make these mistakes sometimes! Thanks for letting me know. Warofdreams talk 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpful Tip

See User talk:Konvictedthug.

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Montserrat-geo-stub

Sorry that {{Montserrat-geo-stub}} was removed. It was unintentional. {{Geolinks-cityscale}} on the other hand is a deprecated template and I removed it intentionally and replaced it with {{Coord}} which (using options) displays the coordinates in the title line. If you have a question please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. --droll [chat] 00:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sacred_Gin

Hi. A belated response to your question about striking through votes on AfDs. You are quite right that it's very poor etiquette (to say the least) to edit another person's comments, let alone strike through their vote on an AfD. That started to happen on the Sacred Gin AfD as there were obvious sockpuppets and multiple keep votes from anon IP users, then one of the supporters of the article (a sockpuppet of the author) decided to strike through almost everything they disagreed with (basically all delete votes). I tried to restore the votes, but it was all very messy and certainly not what one would hope for from an AfD! So yes, you're right, only the original author should strike through their vote, and give a signed reason. regads, TrulyBlue (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Debt Advice Foundation

Hi James, re accuracy there is a (well argued) dispute on the deletion page over whether the ruling you quoted is about the charity Debt Advice Foundation or the brand Debt Advice Trust.

There is another dispute over notability which is separate to the one above. Ironically I feel that 3 multi millionaires giving up directorships of the largest personal insolvency practice in the UK to become active trustees in a fledgling debt education charity is extremely notable! But the gist of the conversation seemed to be that the only thing that should be talked about was the books, which I accepted as fair comment as did the person you were debating with.

Incidentally I uploaded the DAF logo with permission from DAF (when I foolishly claimed to know something about Wikipedia) do you know how to get it on the page? Its on the very early versions of the page.

Cheers johnnybriggs (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting content - copyright

Please could you provide readers with the reference link to a block of quoted text that you feel infringes copyright instead of just deleting the whole thing outright. This lowers the quality of the article for readers. I am reffering to the article entitled 'The Increment'.Next time I will be making a formal complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soma143657 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response posted on User talk:Soma143657, duplicated here:

I see your point, and I shall bear it in mind in the future. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Undoing deletion of invalid user comments

Please could you refrain from undoing the deletion of user talk that refers to sentences which have been deleted or changed. Such comments are invalid and irrelevant to the article. I am referring to the article entitled 'The Increment'. Next time I will be making a formal complaint. Soma143657 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response posted on User talk:Soma143657, duplicated here:

Thank you for your comment. It is generally more helpful, if you find yourself disagreeing with another editor, to inform them courteously of what you think, with a view to attempting to bring about an agreement, without threatening further action such as "a formal complaint". If you have not done so you may like to read the Wikipedia etiquette guideline.

As I have said above, it is not normally considered acceptable to change or remove another editor's talk page comments. The Wikipedia talk page guidelines say "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". I fully understand that it may seem that this need not apply in the case of comments which refer to matter which has been deleted, but for several reasons it does: for example, it provides an account of how editing decisions have been reached for the benefit of other users who may read the page later. I shall therefore restore the comment which you have now twice deleted, and I ask you not to delete it again: whether you agree or not, Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that you shouldn't.

I hope this has helped to clarify the situation for you: if you have any further questions please feel welcome to ask me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

JBCC Joint Building Contracts Committee

I have deleted JBCC Joint Building Contracts Committee not because of copyright problems (although the verbatim copying is a concern, even if it was posted by the "copyright holder"), but because it was an article about an organization with no real indication of notability (CSD A7). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumours

I take your point. Where does it state that reporting rumours is against 'Wikipedia standards? I would be interested to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soma143657 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, two places spring instantly to mind:

The verifiability policy describes as "Questionable sources", amongst other things, sources "which rely heavily on rumors". It also gives the following quote: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively...".
The guideline on "weasel words" lists, among other unacceptable expressions, "Some people say..." "...is thought to be..." and "It is rumored that...".

Apart from the fact that both these specifically use the words "rumors" or "rumored", it is perfectly clear anyway that the whole spirit of Wikipedia policy is that we report only verifiable information, not "err, I think someone or other has suggested" type stuff: even a quick skim through the verifiability policy shows this. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Marco Kroon

It wasn't that I disagreed with the point of view of Greenberetwife. It was that I disagreed with the fact that he/she (most likely a she) was removing portions of an article (any article) without substantial evidence. If it was a underwritten fact which I could review, it would be a different matter. Must like you pointed out to me on the discussion page of Marco Kroon. You were correct and after that, I supplied the original article.

You are also correct that comments should be written in English. I'll refrain from doing that again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.87.100 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Susan118's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgot to leave this last night when I replied to you, you may have already seen it by now. And thanks for coming by to discuss that with me.--Susan118 ^talk 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at JulieSpaulding's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chan Chao

Can you help me understand why Photo-Eye Magazine and the Photography Channel website are not considered acceptable sources? They were deleted from the page I made for Chan Chao. I can see now why the commercial gallery links were removed but Photo-Eye Magazine in particular is a reputable art publication. I did reread the page about sources but am still confused. Thanks. Zuzucohan (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at these two sources again and have decided to restore them. I had taken a quick look at the Photography Channel link and had formed the impression it was not going to act as a source for any of the statements made in the article: I have now given it more time and it seems I was mistaken. As for Photo-Eye Magazine, I confess that looking at it now I do not recognise it at all: I think I must have deleted it by accident along with other links, without even having looked at it. I am very glad you asked me about these matters, so that I have been able to realise my mistake and correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look! Zuzucohan (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Bobphoreal: tag for removal of speedy delete tag

Damn, must be a flaw with twinkle. Thanks for spotting it :). Ironholds (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club Inc.

Look at the Article before you redirect as one is a Tasmanian Rugby Club and One is a NSW Rugby Club.

Mmunji1 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out: I did look at the article, but evidently not carefully enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Philomena, Duchess of Vendôme

Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Coa of Australia

Then why isn't there any limit of the size of files that may be uploaded? As I see it - the file is perfectly in line with all the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons. Change the guidelines, then delete it. --Botev (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love

Your comments are perceptive and informed, and certainly serve as a corrective to the wild logic which has descended upon this article. The direction, I'm afraid, has been hi-jacked meantime, so I plan to wait in the wings for a while. Most specialist (technical) topics in WP are protected from unwanted intrusion by the intrinsic difficulty or jargon of the subject, but not this one. Unfortunately, those who have something to say are frightened off, or are unwilling to engage with the noisy intruders. I don't suppose that WP procedures are sensitized to this anomaly? --Dominique (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me just say this. Your "Wild accusation" is without merit or basis and shows that you are not looking at the situation. If you believe that I am acting out of disapproval of the subject, then clearly you didn't look into the situation or what my concerns were and are.

While you are completely wrong with your assessment of me as an editor, I feel strongest about your concern of perceived censorship. I had actually thought I was on the track towards working with the major contributor of the article, but can clearly see the persons suggestion that the article be "Protected" as a specialist topic. That does not happen on Wikipedia. THAT is censorship. People are not kept out of specialised articles because it is a difficult subject, it is because they are not contributing accurate information that constitutes vandalism. Dominique Blanc clearly demonstrates point of view and the desire to use original research by "aiming" the direction of an article, or suggesting that anyone else has hijacked it by not agreeing with the severe slant of the yellow journalistic prose.

As a major contributor to this article and other ancient history and LGBT articles, I do not simply dispute an article. I work on it at length. I check links and references, prose, image and text copyright and conitue to learn the latest accepted ways to format the citations accurately and with links to the material and the actual page, where possible that the claim is supported. I check titles and make moves when needed to be accurate and encyclopedic.

If Dominique Blanc thinks he is going to simply wait me out.......I hope youth is on his side. Because I am not going anywhere. I seldom abandon any article that I contribute on in a major way. Take a look at the article today, and what it was before i began editing and please let me know where i may have made mistake. While i disagree with you claims against me, i fully agree with your assessment of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a battle going on here which I don't wish to be part of, on either side. Looking back now at the remarks I made in response to Amadscientist in the AfD discussion, I think I phrased my remarks in a way that was not entirely fair to what Amadscientist was saying: perhaps I was over-influenced in my reading of Amadscientist's comments by an impression I had picked up from another editor's remarks. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement to the effect that decisions about the article should be based only on the content of the article, both the perceived and the actual motives of editors who have contributed to the article being irrelevant, whereas a couple of contributors to the debate (including Amadscientist) did refer to their perception of other editors' motives: they were wrong to do so. That was the essential thrust of what I was trying to say, and I stand by that, although I would not be prepared to defend my exact choice of words in expressing it.

As for Amadscientist's invitation to compare the article now with what it was before, I have had a quick look through. I have no particular quarrel with the article in its present state, and certainly at least some of Amadscientist's edits have been improvements. However, please remember that I have never sought to either criticise or defend any particular version of the article: my comments were only about arguments given to delete it altogether, and did not refer at all to the content of the article. Perhaps sometime I will study the article in more depth and come up with specific criticisms, but frankly I doubt it. This is not a topic which particularly interests me, and I have no wish to dwell on it. I happened to stumble on the AfD discussion, thought some of the arguments used in that discussion were not good, and said so, and that is all: I did not even support or oppose the deletion proposal, because, quite frankly, I do not feel very strongly about it.

Finally, Dominique Blanc and Amadscientist have both put a considerable amount of work into this article. Clearly they do not entirely agree on the correct approach to it, but there is still a lot of common ground between their respective versions of the article, and they both seem willing to communicate constructively about it. Perhaps they could try to discuss it with a view to working together to produce some sort of consensus version: not, to be realistic, one which they could both support 100%, but perhaps one which they would both be willing to accept.

JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a subject that is very clouded and the article made it worse with huge amounts of stuff that I had legitimately removed based soley on Wiki policy, guidlines and simply being encyclopedic and nuetral. Dominique is willing to let me edit for now, but clearly plans to address things later, instead of now on the talk page for the article.

The article could still be deleted as I actualy did not follow procedure and list the relevent problems in bullet point in relation to Wiki policy and guidelines and how they were specificaly overstepped. I also did not present the argument well when nominating the article by not mentioning the three scholarly phrases that are interchnagable (Platonic love, Socratic love and Greek love) The current information in both this article and Platonic love are identical and there should only be one page with explanation to the othe Neo Classical phrases coined in the 19TH century. Another mistake I made was making the wrong argument. That the article was slanted, can simply be fixed (while mind you the amount of time it requires to be as precise as possible and follow guidlines to a T in regards to references.) and editing with a political agenda is not against policy or guidlines but is discouraged as lacking nuetrality. My discovery of a past by one of the editors in regards to an organised effort is true and beyond the open source page, wiki actualy does have a Mentorship program for anyone who has concerns for articles in regards to pederasty and pedophilia. Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship I made an entry there , but again certain bounds must be crossed to meet the standard of be a problem. I have no doubt if problems do persist and I don't let my anger overcome my ability to form a cohesive thought......I may have something. But this situation was clearly not stepping over the line for them as the Admin that runs the prgram was the first to comment and add Keep on the page as being well referenced. The problem was....much of the references were actualy just notes attached with links that did not support the claim in the article or worse. You have to actualy had to find the source yourself and read it to know that it was not a real citation.

Sadly that was another problem with my nomination. AFD nominations are general discussed by mebers of the AFD project who go through the list and add their consensus. They know little to nothing of the subjects, but can look at the articles and make judgements based on what they see. A stack of references looks good at quick glance, and a google surch will bring up enough hits to claim notabilyt of the term, without knowing that several of these terms were produced nearly simultaneously at Oxford during the Neo Classic revival. The equivelant of Car to Automobile and all the other names given for the same thing.

I was upset with all your claims against me, not for having them, but for my perception of labeling me a "Moralist" so to speak. No. I am a history buff. I like obscure articles that have little or no information that I feel have been obscured by time and misunderstanding. A personal project of mine on wiki was put on hold that I may finaly tackle this subject. I may have a bit of an OCD thing about articles and sometimes will not stop untill a basic framework of consistant information is put together with references.

I cut my teeth on this where I learned vast and important lessons on edit warring (or should i say, the importance not too)and working with agressive and belittling editors who have just as strong or stronger stubburness streaks as I do. It was the first article that i was major contributer to make GA and I have stepped back from mving any further article to GA untill I can format my articles in a manner similar to the other articles under Acient Rome and Greece. Working on Greek love pushed my understanding of formating and referencing to a level that makes me much more confident to make needed changes to my other major contributions of such articles as Theatre of Pompey, and Rostra (which was a bitch to research as the structure has the same problems as Greek love, in that it to has multiple names, refences and histories as well as many similar structures within yards of the original....which was also moved....anyway). I also built up Comitium, and restored, altered for clarity and uploaded the Platner diagram of Republican forum which I have seen numerous times used in many other locations including an Archeology Website. I contributed references and prose to that article.

I fell into this with a call by one of the two editors for help against an accused vanda on the Platonic love article and discovered the revert was justyfied after making the same mistake others have.....that it was a moral proble. I even went as far as to add a section to the talk page Talk:Greek love that people who are uncomfortable with the page should not edit.

This is not about two editors having a fight. It's about not allowing any editors the ablity to fill Wiki with misleading or inacurate information. Why this was not written as an essay, I can only assume is because the editor was unaware of those pages. I believe Dominique should salvage all the information he had and place it under an essay page with any title he wants and let continue with others on the encyclopedic page with nuetrality and accuracy.

Thanks for your civil reaction by the way. It could be seasy to just be insulted by my first post.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I confess that my first reading of your position was rather wrong. I am glad I can happily say that, and that you can thank me for being civil: there are far too many people editing Wikipedia who are unable to reassess the position of an editor with whom they have had a disagreement, and whose only response is aggression. It was also interesting to read your comments about the history of your experiences. As for "This is not about two editors having a fight", yes, I am sure that is true, though it did once look as though it might be. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of further thoughts.

I am quite sure that Amadscientist is right about people who "know little to nothing of the subjects, but can look at the articles and make judgements based on what they see": I have come across this problem before, not only in AfD discussions but also in other areas, and it can certainly be very frustrating for someone who does have a good knowledge of the subject and can see where they are going wrong.
Amadscientist clearly knows far more about the relevant history than I do, but I wonder about the Platonic love and Greek love articles being virtually synonymous. Certainly the most common use of the expression "Platonic love" in recent times is very different from anything the "Greek love" article refers to. I was intending here to make a comment on how similar/different the two articles are, but every time I try to open the "Greek love" article my browser crashes. Perhaps I will be able to do this some other time. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Vieta

dear contributor, François Viète or Viette (in old french), is Franciscus Vieta in latin. I am not sure that in english, teachers and pupils will apreciate François Vieta which is an horrible mixture between french and latin. It'd be better to rename it François Viète (so is he born), and to make somme redirection. In fact, I have translated this page from my 'own' new page on Wpfr. The point of view is a little different now that it was in 1911.. The innovations of François Viète alias Vieta were known by Harriot (throut his friend Tarporley, who was former secretary of Vieta) and Descartes probably read Harriot and Vieta, not saying it. As my english is not native, there is a lot of do with this article. But, please... If you have any doubt about the signification of some word, or mathematical expression, give me a call. I'll be very pleased if you can revert to the ancent version. thanks. Even Viète François or Vieta (Franciscus) even Apollonius Galli 'd be better...Jean de Parthenay (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to "It'd be better to rename it François Viète (so is he born)...", Wikipedia policy is that the form of a name to use is that most usually recognised in English, not the name under which the subject was born. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that he is normally known in English as Vieta, not Viète. As to François Vieta against Franciscus Vieta, I have come across both, and I am not sure which is more common: in fact I think in English he has most commonly been referred to simply as Vieta, and personally I would have moved the article to that name, but for the fact that experience suggests that a title consisting only of a surname would not last long. As for "horrible mixture", that is a subjective judgement. I agree that using a consistent language seems neater, and since I am not sure whether François or Franciscus is more common I would have no objection to a move to Franciscus Vieta, but Viète is certainly not the usual English form. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Vieta is the name of a crater on moon. I'have rename as Vieta (franciscus). Thanks for all Jean de Parthenay (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific revolution and so on

Hello ! About scientific révolution, you (re)wrote ... Although Franciscus Vieta(1540,1603) gave ... it was William Oughtred (1575–1660) who / was the inventor of the slide rule ... At first I did'nt realized why. It sounds like a joke. In fact, I read all the article and I understood how different are the points of view between europeans... No where in this article the changes of mind that was the proof by A+B is evocated, because all the point of view are technical or pragmatical. (may be i am a little too Bourbakist) For instance, the sentence of Galilée : the world for him was geometric (and perhaps euclidean) not algebraic... Even if Galilée was not so acointed with Vieta's letter, he knew by de Beaugrand which use Fermat made with this notations. (around 1636). I won't say that the hability to think generality had comme from Vieta's notation... nor Harriot's. I 'd be ridiculous. That's a global change in mind... but, how can I translate the idea that it's more important than perform division on a slide rule ?

I have rectified this horrible mistake about Syon. Hollydays !Jean de Parthenay (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarporley

You had noticed on french article Tarporley that Syon's house and college of Sion were not the same... I did'nt know that. I thought the college was inside or above the house of the earl Percy. I'have never been there... I'h seen on maps... the college was near of St alphege. There is some thing that I do'nt understant : it's said that Tarporlay lived at Sion (college) around 1600 but the college was created in 1620-1630 ? What do you know about it ? i will translate if it helps. I think that it is a minor error, but i don't want to makle mistake. If you have time you may translate (or do better than i did) the page of this strange mathematician. thanks for answer (i'm leaving now for a while). bye Jean de Parthenay (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please move back

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Inappropriate moving of article. The majority seems to agree with me that you should reverse your move of Newton's method. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now moved it back: see the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Baron d'Holbach

Very odd. If you look back to my first rewrite. That looks like exactly what I put. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hume&diff=prev&oldid=299863519 Myrvin (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I see. It's the ' mark rather than the standard apostrophe that Word uses. I shall have to look out for that. Myrvin (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have just written an explanation for you, but you beat me to it, producing an edit conflict. At first I was as puzzled as you: it is distinctly confusing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation?

Hello James. I have a favour to ask of you. The article Bogdanov Affair contains the statement "the Bogdanov brothers have often participated in the discussions, both under their real names, and under several pseudonyms. Most of the pseudonyms were the names of other physicists or mathematicians, purportedly defending the Bogdanovs' work and sometimes insulting their critics, among them the Nobel prize recipient Georges Charpak." It's sourced, if you ignore blogs, to this French article. From ploughing through a Babelfish translation of the page I'm not convinced that all those claims are supported, but Babelfish being what it is I'm not completely confident in that judgement. Would you mind taking a look and seeing what you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

At a quick glance I can't see any support for the claims, but I have not read the referenced article through. I'll try to find time to read it properly tomorrow morning and let you know. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Olaf Davis (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now read the French article. It certainly suggests that the Bogdanovs wrote under pseudonyms and insulted their critics, and gives an example relating to Georges Charpak. However, it unambiguously does not say that any of the pseudonyms were the names of other physicists or mathematicians. It is also not clear that it is being asserted that they used pseudonyms: it says "themselves under an alias or with the help of well-wishing friends", which could be taken as meaning that they did both, but it could mean that the writer is not sure which is the case. I have edited the statements in the article to accord (I hope) more closely with what the source says. (A fascinating case.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi James. Thanks for your help. Sorry I didn't directly respond before - I mentioned your changes here User:Olaf Davis/GAN (which is a Good Article review I'm preparing) but didn't think to point you to it. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The James help service is available whenever you need it. (Well, within reason.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable People from Victoville

Left a message on the discussion page of Victorville. Also, I added some points surrounding Dan Henderson, but forgot to log in. These points are in the Pride Fighting Championship and his own entry. Do they belong here, also? Thanks. 72.82.117.93 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)HAWARREN

Participationism AfD

Thanks for the info. I have contributed a 'no' vote, predictably enough. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrei Tsygankov

While I understand there can be disagreements and points which can be debated (and talk pages are made for that), I'd also appreciate if your edit summaries were worded with just a tiny bit less pointy personification. Thanks in advance. MLauba (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise. It wasn't meant to be "pointy", but reading it now I do see it could look that way. I was simply trying to say that I was editing the article to deal with a criticism which had been raised, and saying who had raised the point. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. BTW, I replied to your own request for clarification on Talk:Flower Lane Church, and am of course totally willing to discuss that matter further. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I have also seen Moonriddengirl's contribution on your talk page, which has clarified things for me. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fenton Robb

I wonder why you think have left Wiki? Fenton Robb (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The note I left to which this refers is dated 4 July, i.e. now 15 days ago. In those 15 days I have forgotten my exact reasons, but it was based on finding that you seemed to have stopped posting to somewhere else (alas I don't remember where) about the same time you last posted on WP, I think, and by putting 2 & 2 together and making about 7 I decided you might have dropped out of internet posting altogether. At least it was something like that: I think now that whatever my exact reasoning I was not thinking clearly, and I feel a bit silly about having jumped to such a conclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your level of interest in my activities really surprises me! Fenton Robb (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Shelllogo1961.jpg

Thank you for noticing the licensing problem with File:Shelllogo1961.jpg. Rather than delete the image, I replaced the licence with a fair use claim as a company logo. Often a logo or other image which is incorrectly uploaded with a free licence is used in a way that the licence can be replaced with a fair use claim. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Pia of Braganza

Hello JamesBWatson. I totally agree with you. The Google results are:

about 4,090,000 for Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (0.08 seconds)
about 4,080,000 for Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (0.10 seconds)

With her complete surname (including "Gotha") and without it, this results are clear. And also based on Wikipedia conventions policy, the article about Princess Maria Pia of Braganza should be moved. Can you help? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I learn today that, here, in WP:EN, the rules are not to apply always. If we translate some articles and we accept it, it doesn't be applied to many others. The rules defined by WP policy and mentioned by you was ignored in all discussion... Incrible! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)