User talk:Perceval/Archive3
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Thames, thanks so much for your helpful contributions at the Jacrosse arbitration evidence page. As you said on my talk page, it does indeed take up a lot of time; but if it eliminates our problems with Jacrosse, in the end it's worth it. Besides, in a place like Wikipedia there's a huge free rider problem, and somebody has to do the dirty work! Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I wonder whether he's beating a "retreat," as he would call it (see this choice comment of his) from Wikipedia. Take a look at this diff. Hydriotaphia 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if it is a retreat, then the arbitration is already having a positive effect. Unfortunately, a change of heart at this point isn't enough to erase all those diffs on the evidence page. I hope this arbitration is relatively open-n-shut, because if Jacrosse somehow squeaks out of it, he will be impossible to deal with.—thames 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the support
[edit]Hi Thames- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Anarchy link in World order
[edit]Thames, I changed anarchy to anarchy in the World order page, and you reverted the edit. I'll certainly accept that Anarchism might not be the best fit - perhaps Anomie? - but as anarchy (word) redirects to the disambigaution page Anarchy, I thought it best to remove what is in effect a link to a disambiguation page. I certainly have no intention of edit warring over this and haven't reverted. However, I did think that wiki style guidlines discouraged links to disambiguation pages. If you believe that ths current wikilink best suits the article, I'll let it be. Cheers, Colonel Tom 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Compromise: it's been long lacking, but I'll make a stub article for Anarchy in international relations and link to that. Since it's a unique and distinct concept, it does warrant its own article. Sound good?—thames 14:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to be an excellent solution. Thanks. I truly hope I'm not coming across as patronising when I also thank you for adding the new article to the disambig page for Anarchy. Cheers, Colonel Tom 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Oswald Spengler.jpg
[edit]-Nv8200p talk 20:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to tell you that a new page for Great Powers is going to be created in the future. This page is meant to be a summary of Superpower, Major power, Regional power and Potential Superpowers, which means that the page should detail exactly when the United States became a Superpower as opposed to Great power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The namespace "Power in international relations" does not restrict the article to superpowers. "Major power" isn't even a strictly-defined term in political science, unlike superpower or hyperpower. I'm not sure how this got decided, but it's a nonsensical limitation.—thames 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
[edit]Many thanks for your support of my RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your trust. Regards, Kaisershatner 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]Ok, will do. Esaborio 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I must have been in a hurry and didn't notice... Esaborio 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Avoid peacock terms
[edit]thames wrote:
Here's the page I was referring to: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. All the best. —thames 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I learned something new today. Your message was a welcome one, When I saw the new message icon, I actually expected the "Big-brother, paternal copyright police", because of my cut and paste postings on the prediction's talk page. I was happily incorrect.Travb 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thnks
[edit]Re: authorlink = Walter Laqueur
didn't know that.Travb 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have gotten around to making a reply at Talk:Geostrategy#Stevertigo_intro_text. -Ste|vertigo 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- X-SV
Middle Power
[edit]I don't know if you just read the anecdote about the origin of the term or the whole talk page. If you did read the whole talk page you would see that I added references from the Canadian Encyclopaedia, the Government of Canada website, and two published books. I also asked that no countries be added to the "list" without similar research, which someone did, so we added Australia to the list. I especially invite you to read about the book on South African's potential Middle Power status, which goes into the theory of what a Middle Power is. Kevlar67 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you have all of these citations, why isn't the article cited yet? Not one single sentence in the article has a footnote.—thames 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk |
Badly-formatted Clavier?
[edit]Some time ago you expressed reservations about a part of Well-Tempered Clavier which I wrote - formatting and 'Wikisyntax'. I still am not, experienced enough here to know just what you meant. Can you explain? --Tdent 16:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest a good starting place is Wikipedia:Manual of Style. That will help with understanding a lot of the formatting conventions used on articles. Let me know if I can be of more specific help to you.—thames 18:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Justification article
[edit]Hi,
I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.
Thanks, --jrcagle 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"Major power" nonsense
[edit]If you were to nominate this awful article for AfD as OR, you could count on my unflinching support. Albrecht 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hurrah from AfD! Albrecht 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Contact me immediately
[edit]Please contact me as soon as possible.--BradPatrick 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind (double entendre intended).--BradPatrick 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I changed my mind (again). Do please contact me offline.--BradPatrick 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Goodbye
[edit]Thanks for all your great work. Danny 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Danny. Maybe I'll see you on down the trail.—thames 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting in my RfA!
[edit]Thanks for the vote in my RfA! It did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This case has been closed. The final decision is in the case page at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)