User talk:Mannafredo/Archive2

"the Discovery Institute emphasises Dembski's credentials as a mathematician"

• "A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski ... Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals ..."[1]
• "...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski’s..."[2]
• "...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski..."[3]

See a pattern? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What I don't see is the word scientist, which is what the main text says. Also, I don't see any reason to suggest that mathematician is being emphasised over philosopher. Is it just because that word comes first that you feel it has more emphasis? If so, I think that is a strange notion, and would be interested to know what others think about that. Finally, I suspect that you are purposefully using the WP:WTA word 'although' juxtaposed with 'emphasis' to introduce non-encyclopeadic derision of this man because of your personal views. It seems obvious to me that you have an axe to grind . As I have not, I will not revert your last edit, but hope someone else does. (PS You seem to have messed up the references section for Mozilla Firefox users. I'm not sure to fix it). Mannafredo (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scientist" is more problematic from current sources (but wasn't a point you had previously been arguing). My suspicion is that the DI may leave this more flimsy claim for the Christian press to make on Dembski's behalf. "Philosopher" is also being emphasised, but legitimately (as he currently works as a 'Research Professor of Philosophy'), unlike mathematics (an area that he hasn't worked in since his post-doc days). You haven't attempted to remove "although" to date (as far as I can tell) -- you merely complained about it in an edit summary changing something else. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My previous points have been about the word 'emphasises' (and 'touts' prior to that) which relates to both mathematician and scientist. DI claims may well be flimsy (and I think you'll find the the overwhelming majority of Christian press have little or no regard for this man), but whilst adding references to show they are regarded as flimsy by prominent others is okay, placing your own bias in an encyclopaedic article is not. I don't have a great personal problem with the word 'although' on its own, or when used with a dormant word like 'lists'. The problem with 'emphasises' is that it is a relative word. Tell me, 'mathematics' is emphasised relative to what? Not 'philosopher', as you say. If you emphasise everything, then nothing is emphasised. That means the word has no meaning, becomes weasily and inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with using the word 'lists' in its place, and I argue that it is much more suitable. It in no way lightens the inference that this man is claiming academic prominence that he can not justify. Mannafredo (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Cotterill

Vanity page. Nothing else. (unsigned bu User:Mannafredo)

While I think there is a major conflict of interest with this article - it largely having been created by the subject - I don't think the article is unsalvageable. It's also not clear to me that the subject is not notable. I've removed the speedy tag - that doesn't prevent anyone nominating this for deletion by any other method. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He's almost certainly written the article himself, and as such you would expect him to know all the really notable bits. So why has he not mentioned any awards that he has won, galleries that he has exhibited in or prestigious commissions he has received - maybe there aren't any. The only links to literature are to two books that he seems to have written himself, and the two external links are to the same website - almost certainly his own. It's nice stuff, and he's obviously doing well, but I think he's still a good bit short of being notable. Regards, and sorry for my dropped signature last time, Mannafredo (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim didn't write this himself (he doesn't even own a computer), the information is compiled by his collectors (some are famous people) and his publisher. He has been seen on Extra TV, which if you check out the website it is viewed there. If you wish to have more documentation on this I would be happy to provide it. I apologize for not understanding this wiki, it is very new to me. I can post his appearances around the world at world renowned galleries like Christi Sothers in NYC. His monument sculpture was on display in Grand Central Station in January and is now displayed in Park City Utah where the home of the 2002 Winter Olympics were held. Just let me know what I need to do. Thank you for helping a newbie out.Timcotterill (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tim didn't write this himself...": So why are you calling yourself User talk:Timcotterill? All your edits are to do with Tim. Does he know your using images of his work? Maybe he doesn't own a computer.

"...(he doesn't even own a computer)": Mmmm, that explains it. Your obviously more than just a collector then - maybe you do know something.

"the information is compiled by his collectors": All of them? Wow there can't be very many. Maybe you just mean some of his collectors - so you say. Who are they; kings, presidents, sheikhs? Have they really contributed to the compilation of this article?

"He has been seen on Extra TV, which if you check out the website it is viewed there.": So what, I've been on TV. and I'm scum.

"If you wish to have more documentation on this I would be happy to provide it.": No thanks, put it in the article.

"I apologize for not understanding this wiki, it is very new to me.": If you don't know how to use it, don't use it, you might shoot yourself in the foot. Mmmm, that's unfair, of course use it and learn it, but perhaps not by creating a whole new article about some previously un-articled craftsman of whom you're simply a collector.

"I can post his appearances around the world at world renowned galleries like Christi Sothers in NYC.": No thanks, put it in the article.

"His monument sculpture was on display in Grand Central Station in January and is now displayed in Park City Utah where the home of the 2002 Winter Olympics were held.": Sounds good, why don't you provide a nice link to that - in the article.

"Just let me know what I need to do": Others will need to comment on that. I just want to hear you explain your actions so far.

"Thank you for helping a newbie out": Your welcome. Best regards, Mannafredo (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:195.194.168.56

195.194.168.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On User talk:195.194.168.56;. This IP Address is a long time vandal, and recently cleared 20 or so warnings from this page. I reverted that clearance twice - both were re-reverted. I'm not sure who, if anybody, 'owns' a user talk page - the user or the community. Certainly 'normal' users tend to house-keep their own pages, but I don't think this particular clearance is appropriate for this user. Mannafredo (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Outcome. Mannafredo (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin Murdoch and Deaths in 2008#7

Have a look here and New Zealand. Read them and learn from them. I concede that 'New Zealander' sounds cumbersome, but nevertheless it is correct, and as such should be used in an encyclopeadic article. If the word really upsets you that much and you want to use an alternative, then maybe try 'New Zealand-born'. Finally, I took the effort to enter a hidden comment asking that any edit such as your's be explained on a discussion page; if you are editing in good faith, please make some effort to argue your change with citations and/or examples rather than the somewhat meaningless 'wrong context' in your edit summary. Mannafredo (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound cumbersome, but the main reason that I would change that is that that is WWGB's opinion on the matter Star Garnet (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch's article begins "Colin Albert Murdoch MNZM (6 February 1929 – 4 May 2008) was a New Zealand pharmacist and veterinarian". Why, then, would his death notice not read "Colin Murdoch, 79, New Zealand inventor ... "? Why is New Zealand inventor any different to New Zealand pharmacist? Would you describe Helen Clark as the New Zealander Prime Minister? WWGB (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But for this, I would have argued that both articles were wrong, and that just because something sounds cumbersome, does not mean it isn't correct. Read the first line of this article. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealander

I believe that it sounds cumbersome as a nationality. New Zealand is a proper demonym, and it has been used since the deaths pages' beginnings. Any thoughts? Star Garnet (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion between the demonyn and the adjectival form of place names. In the case of Deaths in 2008 the adjectival form is used. Hence, Colin Murdoch is a New Zealand inventor, not a New Zealander inventor. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've looked through the List of adjectival forms of place names and see what you mean. This possibly explains it best of anything I could find. I note all 'Blahblah Island's work the same as New Zealand, but where 'land' is part of a longer word other than Island (as with Zealand) - Greenland and Iceland for example, they work differently from New Zealand. In this respect, New Zealand seems to be out there on its own. I'm still not 100% convinced, especially when a quick internet search throws up [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8], many of these written by seemingly clever people from seemingly notable institutions. However, I agree that the evidence points to my initial edits as being wrong, and that the tide of opinion seems to be away from Zealandic. I'll revert my changes. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealandic - that's a new one to me. Maybe it's acceptable in some contexts (whales, hockey teams, botanical terms), but I doubt anyone uses it in reference to individual humans. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of tea companies

==EL, spam, and redlinks==

That's what this article currently consists of. In the near future I intend to trim this to only companies that have Wikipedia articles. There are thousands of tea companies, large, small, and smaller, and Wikipedia isn't intended to be a unqualified directory of them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• done, after 21 days talk page notice. This was a major trim. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Added to article by SchmuckyTheCat:

<!-- ATTENTION! DO NOT ADD LINKS TO EXTERNAL SITES WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE. OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE REMOVED. -->

I have no idea what EL is. This is a list of companies and will be inherently spammy in nature. All the teas I added are on the shelves of major supermarkets in the UK. Not having a Wikipeadia article does not mean something is non-notable or that it should not appear in an appropriate listing. As I have done previously in other articles, I add an external link, as a citation, only where no Wikipeadia article exists. Please do not shout at me by using whole words typed in capitals, and please remember that you do not 'own' this or any other article. Please point to any discussion or consensus that you have reached before hijacking and butchering this article. I'm going to do a revert now; after that you can do what you like. Mannafredo (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement

Follow the link above and read it you total dpisiht. Mannafredo (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do. Thanks for the heads up. Mannafredo (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

I have been hijacked at my desk,and now I have reports from something I haven't done! What do I do? Thanks. 58.170.180.249 (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've got away with it. It's not worth worrying about. Mannafredo (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:ACM2

You have just reverted two of my edits on the this page. Whilst assuming good faith, I must point out that the first of these edits was 'normal' reply to an edit by user:ACM2, and it was wholly inappropriate for you to have undone that edit. I half expected my second 'blanking' edit to be questioned or commented upon - but not discarded in such a seemingly off-hand manner. This suggests that the matter has been amicably resolved. I am going to revert your revert now. If you re-revert it please explain your actions on the talk page. Mannafredo (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My response:

• ACM2 (or someone using their user name) engaged in a rampage of page blanking between 01:03 - 01:09 (UTC) [9], [10]. When I placed a warning on ACM2's talk page, s/he vandalized my talk page [11]. Chenzw also warned ACM2. The same vandalism from ACM2 was delivered to Chenzw's talk page and two articles.

• At 01:13, in a message on ACM2's talk page, Mannafredo asked ACM2: "Have you gone totally barmy, or has someone hijacked your desk whilst your away to get a coffee?" [12]

• ACM2 picked up the refrain that "someone has vandalized my desk," on his/her talk page and with the help desk [13].

• At 01:32 Mannafredo blanked ACM2's page [14]. I reverted this. My view was (and is) that if a user (or someone using that account) has gone on a vandalism rampage, the talk page, specifying warnings, should not be immediately blanked—especially until the matter is sorted out. Such blanking only makes it more difficult for other editors and admins to see what is happening. Sunray (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Result was: User:ACM2 blocked for one week.[15] Sunray (talk)

As I said, I expected my second edit (blanking the page, albeit not an act of vandalism, to be questioned and/or reverted). However, my edit immediately prior to that was a wholly 'normal' edit, and should not have been reverted. I understand that certain revert techniques will revert multiple edits by the same user, but this was not the right time to use such a technique. Anyway, it did all get very confusing for a while, and it looks as though User:ACM2 has indeed gone inexplicably barmy (his previous edit history is that of a useful contributer). Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bradrussell

Hi. Please tone down your language in dealing with this new user:

• "Why U hiding the warnings Brad? Got all embarrassed by your blatent spmming?"
• "You are a spammer. Have you no shame?"

I work a lot with spam and typically we try to take a soft line with newcomers that spam in hopes that they will turn into useful editors. See WP:BITE. If they continue misbehaving, then we take a harder line but even then we try to stick to the sequence of warnings and language found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates.

Also, you should be careful about reverting userpage blanking; it could be considered a form of harassment, especially in light of your edit summary. See WP:USER#Removal of comments, warnings.

Finally, having said all that, we really appreciate your interest in fighting spam and I encourage you to get involved at WP:WPSPAM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think those two lines are wholly inappropriate for this amount of spamming. I regard it as purposeful misuse rather than a naive slip by a newbie. However, I did call him a turd in one of my edit summaries. I regretted it as soon as I did it, and shouldn't have let his edits irk me into doing it. It was wrong and I apologise. I'm very much against profanity, as can be seen here.

Finally, reversion of user page blanking is something I would do in exceptional circumstances only, of which the one you refer to, in my opinion, was. This can be seen in my hesitancy here. Mannafredo (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism especially on my page, I hereby award you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! WikiZorro 22:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I hava favour. I am ACM2, except I am unable to edit pages other than my talk. Could you do me a favour by removing all things on my User page, except the sockpuppet warnings and retired images please? I would do it myself, but I cant. Thanks, 121.221.103.55 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No. You've had your chances, and the puppet edits you've made recently are just causing a disturbance. I suggest you chill out for six months, and then create a fresh user name with a fresh attitude and start editing afresh. Sorry to talk down to you, but I don't need the hassle. Mannafredo (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Does notability have geographical boundries?

copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability

Similar to the idea that notability is not temporary, I would like to suggest that notability, unlike fame, does not have geographical limits. For example, this person is notable enough to have an article in Indonesian Wikipedia. Assuming the existance of this article is correct notability-wise, and it probably is, considering he has won a Global 500 Award and the Order of the Golden Ark, surely he must be considered to be 'globally' notable. English Wikipedia, as with all wikipedia and encyclopedia should surely be willing to reflect notability of any subject that has been deemed notable elsewhere, rather than slant itself to notable persons who are more well known to the English speaking community. I'd really like to hear others' views on this. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not necessarily universal. While someone like George W. Bush has almost universal recognition, Jefferson Peres has recognition in Portuguese Wikipedia but not in English Wikipedia. Therefore the editors of Wikipedia do believe that fame is related to nationality. Having said that, if an English language article is written about Jefferson Peres, and if it survives any nominations for deletion, then it has met the criterion for notability in the English-speaking community. WWGB (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: this has now happened. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I was gonna do it as soon as I had time. ;) I speak no Portuguese, but I know just enough Spanish and have just enough imagination that extremely simple Portuguese is barely legible to me. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I missed this before my last edit. Maybe this shows us something. There is an editor, two of them I think (I can't remember who they are and can't find them again), who has umpteen dozen red links on their user page, all for people in the death pages, and slowly, bit by bit, they are creating articles for them. If nothing else, these red links provide a stepping stone to that user. Please stop deleting them just because they're red. (That 'please' has a begging emphasis on it, it's not supposed to sound like a command:-)). Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we balance this with an effort to avoid systemic bias, though? I think notability is universal, but that this should definitely not be made a part of policy. That would just invite "asking the other Wiki" in deletion and content disputes. I have already seen interwikis come up in deletion discussions, and I don't necessarily object to this. But I am wary of any policy that mandates a comparison between English Wikipedia and foreign language Wikipedias. We have our own standards and set of policies at English Wikipedia, and material needs first and foremost to meet those standards before it is suitable for inclusion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WWGB, I must respectfully disagree. Jefferson Peres has no article in English Wikipedia because no one has created it yet (probably because few English-proficient editors know enough about him). This does not indicate lack of notability in English or in any other language; it merely indicates that we need more translators on Wikipedia.

I asked pretty much the same questions (although based on language, not geography) not long ago and got what I thought was a very good answer. You can read up on it in this archive. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That could be the case, but on the other hand, do you think that American state senators, who aren't even too significant in english Wikipedia, should have twenty articles in other languages? I don't think so. Star Garnet (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the opinion expressed by WWGB. Notability is not bounded by geography; however, different Wikipedia projects may have different notability criteria. On the whole, I do not think that the presence or absence of articles in other-language Wikipedias should have much (if any) effect on our judgments about the notability of topics. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Garnet, why on Earth not? Granted, articles for U.S. state senators might not be high-priority in other languages' Wikipedias, but priority is mostly subjective to individual editors anyway (which is why there are so many factual species with stubs while so few Pokemon lack detailed articles). Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the word 'recognition' as WWGB uses it above is pretty much interchangeable with 'fame', and as such, must remain completely distinct from notability. I agree totally with Aylad's view that Peres does not have an article, simply because no one has created it. That fact can not possibly be a criteria to 'prove' non-notability. The logic there is that no new article could ever be created for wikipedia simply because one doesn't already exist, i.e. It doesn't exist, so it's not notable, so it mustn't exist. We are not here to determine notability, but simply reflect it, if it is there. Whilst I would never suggest that each wikipedia should be a clone of every other, but for the language, as policy, I'm not at all of the opinion that 'asking the other wiki' is in any way a bad thing when questions of notability/deletion arise. We must ask the other wikis and the newspapers and the internet etc, before, hopefully, reaching a consensus. Ignoring the consensus of other 'foreign' wikipedia on the basis that 'we' (whoever that is) 'have our own standards' is just getting a bit, eh, xenophobic's not the word I'm looking for - too harsh, but you know what I mean - it's a bit arrogant let's say. I would agree with Black Falcon that, per se, the existence of articles on one wikipedia should not affect what is on any other wikipedia, but would argue that all wikipedia should indeed have the same criteria for determining notability. An encyclopedia is what it is, irrelevant of who's writing it and who's reading it.

Just to be completely open about the reason I brought this subject up; as WWGB probably knows already, I have a bit of a problem with the deletion of some red links from old death pages. He and, especially, Star Garnet seem to be on a, in my opinion a slightly hell-bent, mission to delete all red links from all death pages that are over a month or so old. Apart from the red-link-deletion thing, WWGB's and Star Garnet's 'patrolling' of the death pages is brilliant and I have the utmost respect for their most excellent efforts. However, to my mind, the last three sentences of WWGB's argument above, and Star Garnet's whole edit above, is evidence of a misunderstanding of notability and shows a misplaced over-reliance on wikipedia as a self-referencing entity. It may be inappropriate to bring up a personal issue that I have with these two editors on what should be an abstract discussion on 'unwritten policy', but to provide a context of why I'm arguing this point; if you look at the red link deletions here, you'll see what I consider to be a misguided and over-zealous red-penning of other editors' valid and good faith contributions to English wikipedia. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my position before, and I believe it is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, but I will state it again. Notability is tested when an article is written. That testing may be (1) an administrator considering a request for speedy deletion, (2) a proposed deletion, or (3) an article for deletion being considered by the Wikipedia community. When a redlink is introduced into the Deaths in 2008 page, NONE of these checks is available. A questionable, possibly non-notable, death entry can remain on Wikipedia forever unless physically removed. When I took an interest in those pages some time ago, I was very concerned at the poor editorial standard. If you compare Deaths in March 2006 with Deaths in March 2008 you may see the point I am making. The recent page is accurate, attractive and consistent. Recent Deaths is a high-traffic page in Wikipedia and it should demonstrate the qualities of the project. I support the efforts being made by editors such as w guice and Star Garnet. To me, the answer is simple: if a redlink is added, then write a stub article. If it "survives", then notability is confirmed and the entry stays. I am not stating that a redlink is not notable; rather, I am asserting that notability is only tested and confirmed when a Wikipedia article is written. Thanks for reading, WWGB (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue which I have not encountered before. WWGB, at first glance I agree with your statements at the end of that post: that at least a stub article (with, I assume, an assertion of notability) should be created before adding a redlink to the death pages. However, this depends on the editor adding a redlink being familiar enough with WP to create that stub page and assert notability. What if a well-meaning newcomer adds the link but (due to unfamiliarity with WP policies, guidelines, and practices) doesn't create the article? Do you delete redlinks as soon as you see them, or wait a day or two to give editors who are more experienced than the newcomer a chance to research and create new articles? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the "convention" amongst some experienced editors at Recent deaths is to allow one month for an article to appear. Only then is the "redlink" deleted. Quite often those same editors will write the article themselves. WWGB (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems pretty reasonable to me. Thanks. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Ok, but how about something like a school. I saw recently the statement every high school is notable. I don't believe that is true, but if it was, and assuming we are talking about American high school, does that mean that ever similar school in the world is notable enough for the English Wikipedia? The same might be asked about places I think. Oops, forgot to sign, sorry. Doug Weller (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The claim that every high school is notable is an opinion only, and many editors disagree with it. However, any high school that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is presumed to be notable, regardless of where it is located. After all, the English Wikipedia is just the "English-language Wikipedia", not the Wikipedia for the Anglosphere, however it is defined. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that some Wikipedias in different languages have adopted different notability guidelines (which is only to be expected; guidelines are arrived at by consensus, and it's hard for most editors to participate in discussions held in languages they don't speak). This might mean that some topics are not accepted on some Wikipedias despite being accepted on others. Beyond that possible limitation, I think Black Falcon's comment was very well said. I feel that all topics share equal notability in all languages and geographical regions; the only question then would be "how much notability is enough notability"... and then you get people debating whether notability is a binary state (it either is or isn't notable) or a quantifiable attribute (topic A is more or less notable than topic B). Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops... sorry, Black Falcon, I just realized that I re-stated something you'd said earlier in this discussion: "different Wikipedia projects may have different notability criteria." Sorry about that. :) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but you did explain why different projects may have different notability guidelines. :) By the way, I like your fomulation: "equal notability" across languages and geographical regions. It's succinct. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WWGB's position as described above, is relevant to the creation of articles. That is not the matter I raised. As it happens, I suspect an article on Otto Soemarwoto would survive without question. Whilst good housekeeping is admirable, it cannot take precedence over content. I would suggest that Deaths in March 2008, although more attractive and consistent than Deaths in March 2006, is actually less 'accurate' in that, possibly, several notable people have been removed from this list, simply because no article exists for them in English WP. WWGB says:

"I am not stating that a red-link is not notable; rather, I am asserting that notability is only tested and confirmed when a WP article is written."

A WP article has been written, just not on English WP - that's my whole point. The consensus on whether notability is universal seemed to be swaying very much towards "yes" before we seemed to tangent off into aesthetic conventions, practices. I appreciate that arguments on a persons notability will never be identical on other WP, simply because different editors took part in the discussion. I'm not at all convinced that notability being binary or quantifiable are mutually exclusive. Binary may relate to whether they have a link (even a red-link) or not, quantifiability may relate to length of article, if any. I would suggest we take extreme caution when considering deleting a red-link for an article that exists on another WP - we're effectively telling them they're wrong. If we assume that Otto Soemarwoto is notable, it is much more likely for him to eventually have a deserved article written for him in English WP if his name stays red-linked on the pages of English WP, rather than just disappear for ever. As I've said before, I consider red-links to be initial stepping-stones to new articles, or maybe "highlighters to missing articles" is a nicer way to put it. One month is not a long time to wait for an article to be written. WP is a big place and will be here for a long time. One day, when WP is almost "full", and no one can think of stuff to add, they might just go looking for those old red-links and create articles for them in an effort to make WP the wholly encompassing entity that we all hope it to one day be. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much like your point about notability being binary and quantifiable. I didn't think of that, but I agree with you.

Regarding the one-month time frame: one month is not much time at all to create a full article, especially when most of the sources are in another language. However, one month is plenty of time to create a stub article, which makes the redlink not red anymore. All you really need is to clearly identify the person, give barely enough information to indicate their notability, and cite adequate sources to back up your claims. The article can then be expanded at leisure, whether that takes a month or a year. The sources need not even be in English... some editors will object, but other editors should back you up, and there may be members of wikiprojects who can help find sources in English. Best of luck, Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, hunting out appropriate red-links and creating articles for them would be a noble cause, and as I said somewhere further back, there are a couple of editors on just such a mission. However, unless I was a 'full-time' editor, totally focused on red-link stub creation, I suspect I would be hard pushed to create stubs at the rate at which some editors are deleting the red-links. Either way, that's all beside the issue; laziness on my part or time constraints on the part of other editors to not create these articles does not make that person any less notable or any less worthy of their red link or their 'potential' stub. My question remains - If these individuals have been deemed notable elsewhere (on other WPs), are they deemed notable here? If so, their names should not be deleted from a 'list of notable people who have died', which is what the death pages are. It is not a 'list of people with wikipedia articles who have died' - now that would be a difficult list to keep correct. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be long-winded today (I just drastically shortened this post), so here are the points I want to make:

• If individuals are deemed notable on other WPs, they pretty much always are notable here.
• Many editors strive for completion (sometimes at the expense of quality).
• Other editors strive for quality (sometimes at the expense of completion).
• The Death pages (indeed, any very large list or group of lists) may be expected to have the same level of completion and quality as the encyclopedia as a whole.
• The date of a person's death is (perhaps) (usually) the least important thing about them.
• If a person is notable enough to warrant an article, he/she is notable enough to be listed on the Deaths page.
• If a person does not have an article right now, adding his/her death date right now seems trivial.
• In spirit I agree with Mannafredo, but for reasons of practicality I find myself supporting WWGB.
• Here's the kicker (I guess): we will find notable people to write about not because they've been listed on the Deaths page, but because they were notable in life... and then their addition to the Deaths page will be the natural second step after creating an article about them. Is this perfect? Heck, no. Do we sometimes learn about a person because that person was on the Deaths page? Sure. For practical reasons, though, the Deaths page isn't the best way to identify or "discover" a notable person. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 21:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not long winded at all; a difficult question benefits from pointed answers. I'll try to address them as they come.

• So, they are notable. Good start. I like it.
• Yes, and those articles should be reworded and improved into quality articles, not deleted.
• A quality article should be close to 'complete'. If it's not, then it can be added to, not deleted.
• We either have death pages or we don't. If we do, as we do, my point is about who appears on them. You mention other lists; Otto also appears here. Do we delete him from here? I hope no one thinks so. Why? Because he is part of the 'list of people who are on the Global 500 Roll of Honour', just like he is a notable guy who died on April fool's day, 2008.
• Deleting that persons red-links is then also trivial, but, I would suggest, a somewhat more negative approach.
• I personally see no impracticality in having a couple of dozen red links spattered about any given month's death page. In spirit, my concerns lie with guys like Otto, who are swept away from this WP by, to my mind, some slightly over-zealous road sweeping.
• And now we're back to point one - this is not to do with the death pages or the writing of articles, it is do do with universal recognition of notability. I'm really sorry Aylad, but to me your 'kicker' seems at odds with your very first point.

I'm probably going to leave off this page for a good while now, I've said my bit, and it's giving me a headache. Thanks for listening. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. Mannafredo (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I raised this point a while ago with WWGB, and I got the same response. It doesn't mean that someone is non-notable if they don't have an article; rather, it means no one really cared enough about Otto here to create one. Just because it has an article in another language does not make something automatically notable as it may be a speedy or an afd that no one noticed. However, someone who did something somewhere is just as notable as someone who did the same somewhere else. And the concensus that WWGB is referring to is Star Garnet and themselves deleting entries after a while that they deem non-notable. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I cared enough about Otto Soemarwoto to create one. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just StarGarnet and myself. Others support this position. See, for example, Talk:Deaths in 2007#Redlinks. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I cared enough about Otto Soemarwoto to expand on User:Editorofthewiki's good start. I make a note of this because, although it took some searching, I found that adequate references exist in English to establish Soemarwoto's notability. No matter what perspective any of you have on redlink deletion/retention, there are three points that I want to make:

• The absence of a Wikipedia article doesn't mean someone isn't notable.
• A topic has equal notability in all languages and geographical regions (I've said it before, and Soemarwoto is as good an example as any).
• It is far better to find sources and write the article than it is to complain that an article doesn't exist.

And just for good measure, because too many people forget it, a bonus point:

• I have never heard of this Soemarwoto person, nor am I likely to ever hear of him again, but that doesn't mean he's not notable. It just means I'm not omniscient... yet.

Best regards to all, Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deaths in May 2008

(copied from User talk:Star Garnet)

Hi, I curious as to why you are removing redlinked names from this page? Is there some sort of guideline behind this? Surely if a persons death is covered in obituaries by mainstream media then this would confer notability and these redlinks should on day become blue? Indeed, I myself have seen redlinks on these lists in the past of figures I am interested in an created articles for them. Why therefore are you removing them?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The established rule for the recent deaths is that redlinks should remain for a month after the date of death. The general belief is that an article would have been created if they were significant enough to warrant one. Happy editing! Star Garnet (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although it seems a bit odd to me. Presumably that means that if people want to see any redlinks from more than a month ago they have to go trawling through the history to find them. Where is this rule laid down, I'd be interested in seeing it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. That's exactly the point I was making when I brought the subject up on the notabilty talk pages, here (discussion copied copied immediately above). Mannafredo (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

(copied from User talk:Star Garnet)

You might want to see this. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also note the statement "when considering adding red links to lists or disambiguation pages, editors are encouraged to write the article first. Red links should not be created for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles" which comes from the same source. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The section Editorofthewiki links to leans much more to the retention of red-links in death pages than the statement you have chosen above. Your statement is misleading on two levels. 1. 'editors are encouraged...' to write the article first. The article wasn't written first and we can't go back in time and change that. Live with it, it's no reason to then delete the link to person who belongs on a 'list of notable people who have died'. 2. '...should not be created for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles...' relates, as stated, to things like 'every chapter in a book', not people who have more or less been proved notable by their appearance in other WPs. Mannafredo (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"it's no reason to then delete the link to person who belongs on a 'list of notable people who have died' ". How do we know they are notable? Because the authoring editor claims? How do I get to challenge that assertion of notability?

Conversely, if I write

• Michael Meehan, 53, British backhoe loader driver, machine plunged over cliff. [16]

then the entry cannot be deleted? If it can be deleted, who decides? WWGB (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

'How do we know they are notable?'. We look around the media available to us; google news, newspapers, other wikis etc, and then make the call to keep, dump (both are perfectly bold) or go looking for consensus. Each and every case should be addressed on its merits alone. Some should survive as a red-links and some deleted. If creating a stub is easy, then the media search I describe here is even easier. Although a stub is preferable, it should not be a prerequisite to recognising notability. Systematic deletion of 'all' red-links just because they are red, especially in list-type articles/pages, seems to me uncalled for. I would also argue that it is irrelevant whether the red-link has been red for one month or five years. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

There is no way to decide what to keep and what not to fairly, so the only clean option is to set a deadline for the creation of an article. Besides, there is no point in making a stub that is orphaned apart from the deaths page just to keep it on the list. Star Garnet (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that many articles I have created were, upon creation, not linked except for the recent death page; Mary Meader, which I added the first link (to Deaths in 2008), is currently at GAC. The community should decide which redlinks should be included and the ones not to include (the one WWGB provided would be uncontroversial). Just because it doesn't have an article doesn't mean its not notable, and it could deprive the encyclopedia of content if we remove the one and only link. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that this sounds quite sensible. For example, I recently added Reg Flewin to the Deaths in May 2008. Flewin was a top professional footballer in England during the 1930s and 1940s who clearly qualifies for notability on several different criteria. Under the current rules however, unless someone creates the article in the next 20 days (and I had no intention of doing it myself until I read this discussion), his name will be deleted and it will be up to someone who creates the article at some point in the future to add the name back to the correct deaths page. It seems to me that this is a bit of a waste of time for all involved - every person listed at the deaths page has to given a reliable source mentioning their death and indicating their notability already, so I don't really see the need for this extra round of deletions.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As another thought, would it not be more sensible to list all month old names that have no article at Wikipedia:Requested articles and allow the people there to decide whether or not to create an article on them using the source provided on the page here? If they create it then these lists will be all blue and if they do not then the name can be deleted from here then.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning spammers

Hi. Thanks for your message -- I have followed up at User talk:A. B.#User:81.149.130.129.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for un-vandalizing my page

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I didn't even notice that my user page had been vandalized until I looked on the history looking for something else! Thank you very much for taking care of those vandals :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:81.149.130.129

Here's another spammer you may want to consider blocking. I haven't actually warned them, but unless you can tell me a real easy way to do that, I'll probably never bother. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Had a warning & I've done a spam4, maybe ok for now, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time with this one -- you can see the results at User talk:81.149.130.129. Thanks for your help. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As for warning spammers (and other vandal-types), you can never go wrong with the ascending sequence of warnings listed at:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Warnings and notices

They've been extensively discussed and subsequently approved by the community. Some folks will jump straight to level 4 warnings but I normally start off with level 1. (If the spammer switches accounts or IPs, I don't reset my next warning back to level 1; I continue adding ascending warnings based on the total number received to date across all accounts).

In the long-term, I've found that being overly harsh with spammers can come back to bite me in the form of time-sucking wikidrama. Some other editor gets indignant about BITEy behaviour and reverses all my link removals or starts a discussion at WP:ANI about "link-nazis".

I've got all the time in the world to use ascending warnings and stay patient; well-meaning people who don't understand our ways will stop after a warning or two but the hard core spammers will keep at it and get their domains blacklisted sooner or later.

Once a spammer gets enough warnings to justify a block, I seldom block them (see my reasoning just above at User talk:A. B.#User:Xheadadventures) but instead blacklist them. Before that, once they get to level 3, I'll usually list them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam so others can also keep an eye out for them. Also, a bot can be set up to look for further link additions.

It's not a formal practice, but many of our anti-spam volunteers will add links to the spam web site on the talk page. That makes it easier to track which IPs and accounts are adding which links. It certainly doesn't help the spammer to get these links to his site since all Wikipedia's external links are coded "nofollow".

Thanks again for your help, and, please, do bother and do give a F. We need all the help we can get with spam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi AB. When reverting some of 81.149.130.129's spam additions and edits, I failed to spot that he and Chivalry21 are probably one and the same. Thanks for sweeping up after me. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

I've read all the above a bit more thoroughly now. I'd obviously just scraped the surface of Chivalry's editing, and you're way ahead of me. Many thanks for the warnings and notices link. That's exactly the 'real easy way' I was looking for. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about Chivalry21. The hard-core spam volunteers such as myself use a lot of specialized tools such as {{LinkSummary}}, {{IPSummary}} and {{userSummary}} to investigate spammers more fully. Other editors don't have to do the same if they don't want to; they can just list stuff at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam as you did and hopefully someone will have time to look at it sooner or later (we could always use more help there, hint, hint). A good threshold for reporting at WikiProject Spam is either when the spammer hits their third warning or if they've been adding a lot of spam but just not getting all the warnings they should have.

One other simple thing besides reporting spam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam that anyone can and should do: it's always good to include "live links" (example: http://example.com) to the spam domains on the user talk page when leaving a warning. That way if the spammer changes accounts or IPs (very common), a simple Special:Linksearch will identify the other accounts that have added the same link. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:58.104.161.10

Hi! Isn't a {{uw-v3}} a bit heavy for a first warning? Philip Trueman (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually start with level 2, but by the time I'd realised my fist CSD request was a boob and done a second edit, and then went to see if I should/could undo the CSD request, he'd vandalised it again - so I gave him a level 3. I don't mind if you want to change back to 1 or 2. It's your call. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam revo

[17]

And that guy is also removing cited content. Check the page's edit summary and you'll know. All the statements have sources and these guys are simply removing them. I posted my argument on User talk:12.46.29.164 and still no difference. He think's I'm crapping. --60.50.68.160 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your edit warring. My warning was concerning this edit summary "if you want to write fiction go to bollywood you indian freak". That is wholly unacceptable. Mannafredo (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales?

Just seen this edit and wanted to advise you that it's probably not a sensible idea to impersonate Jimmy Wales. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Impersonate him? I'm quoting him - note the quotation marks - from here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, which in turn quotes from this. I'll admit that forgetting to sign my comment didn't help, but do you really think anyone with my quantity of edits would be stupid enough to try an impersonate someone else?. Mannafredo (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See here now. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. FYI I was actually the anon ip here (I got timed out and didn't realise until after I'd made the post). Glad everything's sorted out. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The God Delusion#Moderate religion and fundamentalism

The Economist article can not be viewed in its entirety without paying, and may well have been signed at the bottom - so it is not 'abundantly' clear to me. The CC have obviously seen the whole article, and know that it is not signed, and as this CC article is the only article I could find that says so, I used it (if you type ‘richard dawkins unnamed economist’ into Google, it’s all you get). Assuming other readers 'will' find it abundantly clear, I will leave things as they are now. Finally, the CC article is what it is - a few editorial style paragraphs (whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant) - it is not 'masquerading' as anything. I trust you did not intend to question my good faith by using that word. Mannafredo (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By "masquerading" I was referring not to what the Christian Courier is doing but simply to the way the reference in The God Delusion was framed. It included "Economist" as the title of the journal, as if it was a reference to an article in the Economist. It wasn't. It was a link to an article in Christian Courier. I have no opinion on whether that article should be mentioned - but if it is, it needs to be correctly cited. That's all. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I understand. A badly put together ref on my part. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good faith?

Good faith you say? Give me a break > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAlexius08&diff=299664830&oldid=299645156. --Brad Polard (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. I got a big surprise when the good faith message popped up as well. Just a slip of the mouse, I can asure you. Mannafredo (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK I forgive you. But when I saw that I was just surprised. --Brad Polard (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Brad, that's a great worry off my shoulders. I will cherish your forgiveness in my heart, Brad, cherish it like a poor ragged street urchin might adore and treasure a little fluffy bunny wunny. Brad, it's guys like you, out there on your own, policing wobbly-fingered scum like me, that allows me to sleep soundly at night. Hallelujah! Mannafredo (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

On this revert of my edit. Ordinarily, I might have preferred to simply correct the description rather than deleting it, but in this instance, once corrected it wouldn't really have belonged in the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"High dudgeon"

I appreciate that it is equally legitimate to write Wikipedia articles in either British English or American English, so I can't say definitively that the inclusion of this phrase in an encyclopedic article is wrong, but what I can say is that to British eyes it looks utterly ridiculous - in fact when I saw it my first reaction was that it must be vandalism. Can anyone (other than Simon) help us on whether it looks more 'natural' to American eyes? Sofia9 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree Sofia, utterly ridiculous! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Joe Biden has caught hell the past couple of weeks ... [over comments about Russia]. Moscow officialdom has responded in high dudgeon...." Steve Sestanovich, What Biden Should Have Said, in the Wasington Post, August 6, 2009, [18]. "With the city threatening layoffs and the state crushed under its own massive deficit, there is high dudgeon over anything that might appear to be frivolous, particularly to those about to take a hit." Cathleen Decker, Asking for money when times are tough, in the L.A. Times, July 12, 2009, [19] "The prospect ... has day-care staff andparents who use the South Holland center in high dudgeon." Matthew Walberg, Liquor store proposal angers day-care officials, parents, in the Chicago Tribune, January 24, 2008, [20]. "Bolivians [are] in High Dudgeon Over [a] Soccer Ban." Simon Romero, s.v., in the N.Y. Times, June 17, 2007, [21]. "In June, the [New York] Times was in high dudgeon -- it knows no other degree of dudgeon -- about the Supreme Court's refusal to affirm a far-reaching government power to suppress political speech." George F. Will, Sauce for the Times, in the Washington Post, September 26, 2007, [22]. Need I go on? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If we all starting writng articles in such terms, most of the readers would spend half their time consulting a dictionary. Apply a little common sense my jolly good chappy! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, Simon, but my remaining question would be whether it's not more advisable to avoid such blatant Americanisms in an article about a British politician - eg. if I used the British spelling of the word 'colour' in the biography of an American person, I imagine it would be immediately reversed for the sake of consistency with the rest of the article. Once this controversy dies away you can almost guarantee that the vast bulk of contributors to this article are going to be writing in British English, so a sudden burst of Americanisms in one particular section is going to look a bit odd. Sofia9 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said it was an American phrase? See, e.g., Carl Mortished, Can we make China quit the opium of the gases? in The Times, July 7th 2009 ("Beijing was in high dudgeon last week") [23]; William Keegan, Old ladies should stay off high horses in The Guardian, November 6th 2005 ("[t]he charge certainly produced high dudgeon at the Bank") [24]; Claire Middleton, Hockey: Substitute Wilkinson hits three in The Telegraph, December 16th 2001 ("[There] was drama and high dudgeon in approximately equal measure yesterday as Guildford and Reading snatched unexpected victories") [25]; Stephen Goodwin, Inside Parliament: High dudgeon turns to low farce in The Independent, July 9th 1993 ("A mass walk-out by Scottish opposition MPs yesterday demonstrated once again that such Commons protests seldom have the impact of dignified high dudgeon that the instigators intend") [26]. There is a difference, Sophia, between "I don't know that phrase" and "that isn't a phrase in British English." More often than not, a speaker using latter means the former.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See below for my response. Sofia9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

• It should certainly be replaced by a more common expression – I for one had to look it up. I'm not advocating tuning down our articles to simple English, but in this case there is no reason to insist on that rather archaic idiom (although I'll be sure to use it in personal correspondence in the future :) Amalthea 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking it up is the correct response when one encounters something one does not know. As I said in my comment above (16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)), it is never an acceptable response to bemoan the material (still less its authors) for shortcomings in one's own vocabulary. Our target audience is the reasonably intelligent layman; such a person will either know the term, which is in fairly common use, or welcome the opportunity to learn it. Only schoolchildren - in fact or at heart - resent being asked to learn, and one must wonder, in any event, why someone who was unwilling to learn would be reading an encyclopædia in the first place. We should not flatten language into dull mediocrity merely to coddle those too lazy or too stupid to look up a word encountered for the first time.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I was in point of fact fully familiar with the expression, which from what I can gather put me at a considerable advantage over both Amalthea and Cyber Fox who both apparently had to look it up. A term can still be an Americanism if it exists in British English - ie. it can be considered archaic in the UK while still in common usage in America (I believe 'fall' in the sense of 'autumn' would be an example of that). But if you're telling me that's not the case, and that there is in fact no difference whatever between the usage of the phrase in the two countries, then it most certainly should be removed, because in the UK it would be regarded as a totally unsuitable phrase for an article of this sort. PS - Perhaps 'Sophia' is the American spelling of 'Sofia', Syemon? Sofia9 (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You would think it unlikely when you see what they did to Sulphur :-) Mannafredo (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sofia, Amalthea did exactly the right thing. I sometimes wonder how people with only a minimally-adequate vocabulary think that one is acquired - do they suppose that the heavens open and the Almighty sayeth unto a person "fiat lux"? It seems unbearably tautological to point out that we learn by learning. One accumulates a vocabulary through the process of discovering and correcting specific lexical ignorance. There's no shame in not knowing something, but it is plenty shameful if a person won't look it up.

At any rate, I make no claim about how commonly-used the term is in Britain. The examples given above establish only that it is used in Britain, which eviscerates any notion that educated British readers cannot reasonably be expected to know it. That it is extant yet might be considered archaic in Britain does not justify abjuring it here. If anything, a country whose legal culture has conducted a veritable purge against traditional latin, and whose schools are evidently failing on the most basic level if they are churning out students who haven't been imprinted with the instinct to learn and incorporate unfamiliar words they encounter, strikes me as being in desperate need of a lifeline to avoid the death of scads of the language.

Re the name confusion - sorry, one of my cats is called Sophia and I was on autopilot! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon, apology accepted on the last point. I wasn't implying there was any shame in anyone needing to look a word up - I was simply suggesting that the fact that two highly literate people needed to do that is an illustration of just how archaic the phrase is. But the wider problem is not whether people know the phrase, it's the manner in which the phrase is generally used - as I started this discussion by pointing out, it just looks silly in an encyclopedic article. Mannafredo summed it up well in his edit summary - "what can be regarded as a colloquialism. Suitable for some forms of reporting, but probably not encyclopeadic any more." Sofia9 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with that as a general matter, but--with one minor alteration--I can live with Mannafredo's proposed substitution of "indignation" in this case. I'll go along to get along if "indignation" is an acceptable compromise to other editors?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I looked it up Sofia, simply to satisfy my own curiosity as to what the Oxford dictionary had to say about it. Needless to say, I was not impressed and as for this discussion, i am even less impressed at such a waste of space over such a non starter of an expression. Americanism or Brit speak, it makes no difference. --Cyber Fox (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Take it from a very well-educated American with an excellent vocabulary: this phrase is not in common usage, notwithstanding the fact that it has appeared in opinionated newspaper articles. The suggestion that ignorance of this particular phrase, or aversion to its use in a reference work, might constitute evidence of a "minimally-adequate vocabulary" (incorrect hyphenation, sic), is purely absurd, and, frankly, insulting (albeit in an inane sort of way which is easily dismissed). The same goes for other insulting language deployed by Simon in defense of using this ridiculous idiom in a WP article, and assaulting the intelligence of those who would be done a disservice by such usage, or those who object to its inclusion – see, e.g., "The niggardly vocabulary of one editor...", "...the result of your own poor vocabulary...", "...shortcomings in one's own vocabulary...", "...our target audience is the reasonably intelligent layman...", "Only schoolchildren...", "...dull mediocrity merely to coddle those too lazy or too stupid to look up a word...", "...educated British readers...", and, most especially, "...a country... whose schools are evidently failing on the most basic level..."

Simon, please see WP:DICK before embarking upon another trite crusade of this nature. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)