User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 2

This is an archive of inactive discussions.

---

Wladyslaw II.

You can look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II.jpg ? Tabularius

Cheers. I was certain of that but didn't know how to prove it.qp10qp 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Constable

Hello. I'm delighted to see someone else making substantial additions to his article - it was a tiny stub when I found it in May. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Crecy

Thanks for the comments. English medieval history is quite a strong interest of mine (although it's a long time since I've studied it academically). I'm currently engaged in trying to sort out how to deal with numbers of troops and casualties in the Battle of Agincourt, as well as tidying up some of the more dubious parts in that article and the article on the English longbow. Any advice gratefully received!

--Merlinme 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cromwell etc

Thanks for your kind comments on my edit. And don't worry at all about the storm in a teacup over a reference - I should read the guidance and I will be doing so. I entirely agree about the direction Wikipedia could/ought to go and if I'm going to help it get there, I need to read that kind of thing. So thanks! Greycap 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

What do the style guides say about the distinction between "because of", "owing to", "on account of", and "due to"? Dictionaries often make them seem interchangeable, even though some of them do not sound right when substituted for ones that work. Perhaps you have preferences for when each should be used.

Do you accept "as" as being interchangeable with "because"?

Also, I am curious about when to place a comma before a subordinate clause beginning with "because".

You do not have to answer these questions; but if you do, it would be helpful. Rintrah 11:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Burchfield (Fowler’s Third):

Owing to: Owing to is as often as not a suitable substitute for due to, meaning attributable to, as in owing to ill health or the trains were delayed owing to a signal failure.

Due to: There are circumstances where due to is uncontroversial, for example with the meaning payable to, as in pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, or with the meaning supposed to or announced as, as in it was due to start at four o'clock, or with the meaning ascribable to, as in he died due to heart disease.

However used as a prepositional phrase in verbless clauses, it is controversial.

Speaking for myself, Qp10qp, here, I never use it at all. Burchfield's weasely comments as follows illustrate why he is such a dreary, fence-sitting successor to the great Fowler:

Used as a prepositional phrase in verbless clauses, due to was described as "erroneous" by W.A.Craigie (1940) and was said by Fowler (1925) to be "often used by the illiterate as though it had passed, like owing to, into a mere compound preposition". Opinion remains sharply divided, but it begins to look as if this use of due to will form part of the natural language of the 21c., as one more example of a forgotten battle.

(Bleagh!)

Looking into the original Fowler, I find a perfect statement of the case, which Burchfield is criminal to have cut:

Due "must like ordinary participles be attached to a noun, and not to a notion extracted from a sentence".

(Owing to, on the other hand, is fine, he says.)

Burchfield is useless on on account of, making no judgement at all. I never use it, but I like the expression on that account, used at the end of a sentence, though it sounds a bit rhetorical.

In theory, because should not follow a comma, but in practice I often find it necessary to include one to stop a sentence miscuing. Burchfield is an unreadable mess on because, so here is a clear explanation of the point from Lapsing into a Comma by Bill Walsh:

Many arbiters of usage insist that because should never be preceded by a comma, but I disagree. Negative constructions in particular often need the comma to clarify which part of the sentence because modifies. Observe the difference between the following examples:

She didn't wear her raincoat, because it was too warm.

She didn't wear her raincoat because it was raining; she wore it because it matched her outfit.

We have a distinction between an essential clause and a nonessential clause. In the first example, you can drop the clause and the sentence is still true, In the second example, the sentence's meaning depends on the clause.

On as, sod Burchfield, I'm going straight to the original Fowler:

To causal or explanatory as clauses, if they are placed before the main sentence (As he only laughed at my arguments, I gave it up) there is no objection. The reverse order (I gave it up, as he only laughed at my arguments) is, except when the fact adduced is one necessarily known to the hearer or reader and present in his mind (I need not translate, as you know German), intolerable to anyone with a literary ear. All good writers instinctively avoid it; but, being common in talk, it is much used in print also by those who have not yet learnt that composition is an art and that sentences require arrangement.

Chicago, being a style manual rather than a usage guide, has little to say on these matters.

qp10qp 13:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Burchfield's comments make me want to torch all his books on language — every one of them! He is a distant spectator muddled with indecision. Your spluttering sounds exemplify a learned reaction to his comments.

I wanted to know if there were any good constructions containing "due to", but evidently there aren't. The words seem to discord when placed side by side.

As for "as", I asked about it because it is ubitiquitous in everyday speech, but often sounds horrendous, though I found a usage of it in one of Wilde's works which pleased me. Fowler's advice makes sense. Rintrah 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. When I started as a lawyer, I fretted over the use of due to in legal pleadings as a statement of causation. What if counsel for the other side argued, on a preliminary issue, that the pleadings failed to assert that X caused Y, and sought a dismissal on that ground? Ha ha ha - who cares? Case settled, off to the bar, champagne all round. In legal terms, due to is confined to the sense debt due and owing, and owing to (or because of) states causation. But nobody bothers with the distinction, and you wouldn't believe how much solicitors overcharge their clients.--Shtove 22:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. I can see why it is an important phrase, if it is immediately followed by the amount going into your bankaccount. A friend said of his brother's profession, also a lawyer, it charges clients exorbitant amounts, but by world standard's its prices make it a third world firm. Rintrah 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An example of shortcomings of wikipedia

While I was editing the article on Canadian literature, I found many sentences exemplifying wikipedia at its worst; for instance, Canadian literature may be divided in two parts, somewhat like a tree with two great roots. One root is the deeply buried culture of France. and even worse Canadian literature, while often implying an underlying love and concern for the nation, is not rah-rah patriotic propaganda. (in this version [1]). If it was not listed in articles needing copy-editing, I would never have known prose that bad and never have laughed so hard. Rintrah 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've done a great job of that opening. (Sometimes it's more satisying to clear out the woodshed than to polish the ornaments.) I'll drop something in there about Alice Munro, sometime, with a couple of references (my paper, The Guardian, is always raving about her, so that shouldn't be too difficult). Leonard Cohen also cries out for a mention, in my opinion, so I'll do that, too. But I'll have to put my lumberjack shirt on first, to get in the mood. qp10qp 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As a test, I changed the you's in Literary language to youse's, and no-one noticed! The changes remained for eight days, until I was sympathetic enough to revert them. Oh dear. Some articles are doomed to remain ugly, like permanently malformed children. Rintrah 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, that's perfectly good Scouse! qp10qp 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing how the language of that article is incongruous to its subject! Oh well. I should not complain too much since I am motivated to amend it.

Question: What is the plural of encyclopedia? Is it declined like a Latin first declension noun, or does it conform to the English convention of receiving an "s" in its plural? Neither my dictionary nor dictionary.com answers this for me.Rintrah 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. "Encyclopedias" appears in three dictionaries on "Onelook" and "encyclopaediae" on none. I don't think the latter would be strictly inaccurate, however, just slightly pretentious. The word "encyclopaedia", grandiosely classical though it sounds, apparently has a hybrid etymology and so invites whatever lexical abuse we wish to heap upon it, I suspect ("Wikipedia" springs to mind). qp10qp 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. According to etymonline, it is a Late Latin word (first attested in 1531) apparently from a misreading of the Greek enkyklios paideia. So it is artificial rather than hybrid. But lexical abuse is still licit. I wonder if Jimbo Jones ever trembled at the idea of trangressing with wikipedia. Rintrah 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Valois unmerge

That unmerge user is a vandal and has been warned before. It will probably be repaired as soon as he is noticed. Seasalt 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the links! Rintrah 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

War Epitaph

From Chinese armies in the Second Sino-Japanese War: In the Generalissimo's Command Office one photo of General Tze-chung [deceased] remained; the caption of this photo read, "Why your will stay at finish in calm."

The caption is reminiscent of Shakespeare — I wonder if the translator was aware. Rintrah 17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Fowler Question

As I was reading the 60's (I assume) volumes of Encyclopedia Brittanica today, questions sprung in my mind about English usage. The author of the Dog article uses particular colloqiualisms, like "earn their keep", but the ones which intrigued me most is those of the ilk "you have...". Does Fowler say anything on this particular construction? It seems more common in colloquial discourse than written English. Donne makes fun of it in one of his Satires, pretending ignorance at its meaning. It is most commonly colloqiual rendered, "you have got.." or "you got...".

One advantage of wikipedia over 60's Britannica is articles on present-day issues are more up-to-date (cf. drug addiction). However, I found the articles on Augustus and Dogs more entertaining than their wiki-counterparts.

Did you know, according to some experiments, dogs can apparently peform simple arithmetic? They can apparently signal the answer by barking, according to Brittanica.

I laughed when I read that Cocaine causes no physical dependence, and at the insinuation drug-addiction is almost exclusively confined to the lowest class. The article, though entertaining, seemed muddled with the prejudices of the era.

Oh, it also said Marijuana has no therapeutic uses, contrary to present-day reports of it being prescribed to cancer patients as an analgesic. Rintrah 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find much about you in Fowler, apart from advice against mixing it with one (I get the impression he was a hardened one man; but, then, he also twirled his moustaches). I find no objection to the construction in other usage books; Theodore Bernstein inThe Careful Writer says:

In the sense of one, the word you can convey directness and informality in writing: The scientists have never demonstrated that if you lower blood cholesterol by change in diet, you also decrease the risk of heart attack and hardening of the articles. Like any other device, this one should not be overdone. In particular it should be avoided if it suggests the writer is talking down to the reader.

Garner, in Modern American Usage makes a useful contrast between two legal passages:

The second-person pronoun is invaluable in drafting consumer contracts that are meant to be generally intelligible. Consider the difference between the following versions of a lease provision:

Resident shall promptly reimburse owner for loss, damage, or cost of repairs or service caused in the apartment or community by improper use or negligence of resident or resident's guests or occupants.

vs.

You must promptly reimburse us for loss, damage, or cost of repairs or service caused anywhere in the apartment community by you or any guest's or occupants's improper use.

*

On marijuana: it certainly does have therapeutic qualities. For example, it made it possible to listen to Jefferson Airplane albums at university (compulsory in my day) without actually smashing up the record player. Not a great treatment for lung cancer, on the other hand.

*

On dogs: have you equipped yours with a pair of these yet? Doggles.

qp10qp 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "you have..." is not formally recognised in Style Guides, even though it is often used by writers. Ironically, both one and you can be condescending to readers, in my opinion; for the former seems lofty, and the latter assumes a particular relationship with the reader like an affectedly casual teacher-child one.

As for therapeutic marijuana use, are you sure marijuana is strong enough for Jefferson Airplane? The singer sounds so zonked out in White Rabbit; only a listener similarly zonked out on LSD would be able to connect with the song. Marijuana is not good for those with addictive personalities — for instance, my step-father.

I followed the Doggles link while I was on the phone to someone. Suddenly, a high-pitched giggle escaped my mouth while he was intently describing his weekend. And yes, I am open-minded, so I will consider buying a pair for my quadrupedal friend. Rintrah 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Attribution

Thanks for your encouraging note, Qp. Much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall/Phoenicia trading, settlement, saffron cake and Polgooth ingot

Thank you for your magisterial amendment to History of Cornwall#Pre-Roman

Do you have the energy to amend Cornwall#History, which says:

The site of ancient Belerion, Cornwall, was the principal source of tin for the civilisations of the ancient Mediterranean and evidence has been found of trade with cultures as far off as Phoenicia, located in present day Lebanon. At one time the Cornish were one of the world's foremost experts at mining,[citation needed] the history of Polgooth as a main trade centre for tin is in evidence with tin ingots stamped with the Phoenician mark found in the "White River" at Pentewan proving increasing evidence for Cornwall's importance in mining history

If so please also see Cornwall:Talk#Phoenician trade with Cornwall. _ _ Vernon White (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that, though once one starts with a Cornwall article one could go on forever, as they're not wonderful.

By the way, I don't agree with your removal of my first square bracket. The convention is standard (Brackets [sometimes called square brackets] are used to enclose editorial interpolations, corrections, explanations, translations, or comments in quoted material: Chicago Manual of Style). Halliday doesn't start the quote till "are very fond of strangers…"; presumably the naming of Belerion appears earlier in Diodorus's account, which is why I used the square brackets.

I haven't got the Payton book, and so I don't know if someone has come up with undisputed Phoenician evidence since Halliday wrote his book (I live at Tintagel and haven't heard of such finds round here). I don't rule out that Phoenicians came here, along with the various other Mediterranean seafarers we know about; after all, Iberians are known to have colonised Cornwall and Ireland, and Cornish tomb-building styles can easily be traced back to the Mediterranean. But speculation is no good for a Wikipedia article; assertions have to be those made in reliable sources. As for saffron cakes, sheesh!

Anyway, good call. qp10qp 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Attalus I

Hi Qp, I've gelatedly replied to your query at Talk:Attalus I. Regards Paul August ☎ 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Viking Cornwall ? ? ?

Thanks for your comments on the Vikingist paragraph. I have poppped my two-pennyworth on the Talk:Cornwall page. ---Vernon White (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I have now invaded the Phoenicia article with my and learned others' skepticism about Cornish Colonies, in particular- Malcolm Todd(1987). see also [[2]]. I see User:Mammal4 wants us to do a re-write of Falmouth so I may leave the Phoenicians to stew for a bit!

---Vernon White (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your draft on Ine and Egbert. I think we have to include the Cornish defeat at Hingston Down and Athelred's subsequent conditional Peace terms, which according to Payton were not entirely unfavourable to the Cornish. Bit late to think straight. I'll look tomorrow evening,I hope, though I'm abit busy. Looking forward to Kneehigh's Cymbeline on Saturday.

Best

===Vernon White (talk)

Vague Question

Hi. This question might be vague. Do you think the expression "X is characterised by..." is overused? I have read it often in wikipedia articles, and it seems to relegate actions and immediate, direct ideas to abstract concepts, often with the pretense of learning. Maybe you or Fowler have something to say about it. Some articles seem excessively fond of abstractese, but I am cautious in editing them lest I misconstrue the vague ideas. Rintrah 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that this appalling form didn't exist in Fowler's day, or I'm certain the old boy would have blown a few gaskets over it. He called that sort of thing periphrasis, or putting things in a roundabout way (It has come about that periphrasis and civilization are by many held to be inseparable; these good people feel that there is an almost indecent nakedness in saying "No news is good news" instead of "The absence of intelligence is an indication of satisfactory developments").

I'm an admirer of Orwell; having read several volumes of his journalism, I've come to agree with him not only that everything can be said clearly but that clear expression is a political act, a safeguard against elitism and misrepresentation. Your last point reminded me that I objected to the following sentence in the Catharism article:The Catharist concept of Jesus might be called docetistic — theologically speaking, it resembled modalistic monarchianism in the West and adoptionism in the East. Eventually someone replied that, as I had suspected, the pretence of learning masked unclear thinking (to say the least). I agree with you that immediate actions are essential in a sentence; a decent sentence should have a clear actor and action in the form of a subject and active main verb, both placed as near the beginning of the sentence as possible. Unfortunately, not a lot of people, as Michael Caine is characterized as saying, know that. qp10qp 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One could also argue such roundabout constructions put people to sleep — like me. I should also point out people often seem reluctant to amend those sentences because they often lack definite ideas. Perhaps these periphrases serve as a buffer, protecting the idea expressed from criticism. But still, it is difficult to edit those sentences without divining the definite idea. The Catharist sentence expresses an incomplete thought. Oh well. Rintrah 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Adjectival phrases

Hi Qp10qp! Is your name derived from any robot by any chance? My question is whether it is aesthetically permissible to compress indepedent information into an adjetival phrase, as in:

The females, wingless and about 5 mm (0.2 in) long, cluster on cactus pads. (from Cochineal).

Such phrases satisfy parsimony and seem to interrupt the sentence's flow. Sometimes they are placed before the subject. Do you think it better to have the information in a separate clause? Rintrah 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It comes over as encyclopedia-speak to me (the urge to squash as much information into a sentence as possible). I like the principle that a sentence should have one idea only; here the information about the females' appearance is one idea and the action of clustering on cactus pads another, so the sentence will never be at ease, however the deckchairs are rearranged. I'd take out one element:

The females are wingless and about 5 mm long.

and follow that with a new sentence:

They cluster on cactus pads.

making:

The females are wingless and about 5 mm long. They cluster on cactus pads.

It's all a matter of taste, I suppose.

I particularly dislike introductory clauses; I prefer subject and main verb to show up early in a sentence. And too many parentheses and subordinate clauses sap the energy from prose, in my opinion.

qp10qp 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

added and withdrawn comment about primary etc. sources?

Hi I saw that you added a comment but next deleted it again. Change of mind, reconsideration, ...?

Regards, Harald88 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I reinserted the essentials in Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#Delete_all_talk_about_primary.2C_secondary_etc._sources.3F

Harald88 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you suffer this usage?

Do you think the word suffer is overused? The Dinosaur article (a featured article) has: At the end of the Cretaceous Period, 65 million years ago, dinosaurs suffered a catastrophic extinction, Many articles on battles of the Roman or Greek armies say the army "suffered" losses. To me the usage seems lazy, and doesn't seem to respect the word's essential definition. What do you think? Rintrah 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It’s the sort of word people use to avoid the passive or to avoid sounding plain, neither of which is wrong in the right context.

The dinosaurs became extinct would be unexceptionable; but to some that might not sound active enough, to others not dramatic enough.

Distrust of the passive tends to grip the a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing police. Yes, too many passives clog the broth; but in small pinches they make fine seasoning.

The word catastrophic is abused in the example, in my opinion—though it is a convention to slap it on the extinction of the dinosaurs. But an extinction is bound to be catastrophic, in the Greek sense of a tragic overthrow of the existing order (how could there be a non-catastrophic extinction?) Catastrophic is also used to imply suddenness; but it took the dinosaurs far longer to die out than is commonly realised. We don’t talk of the dodos "suffering a catastrophic extinction". Why not? Because they were cute and clownish? But what greater catastrophe, what greater suffering, than to be clubbed to death one by one by pox-nosed matelots within a few decades?

Anyway, my suggested copy-editing policy for suffered: keep it with a preposition (suffered from, suffered with); ditch it without.

qp10qp 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back to Martin Luther

I've had two dust ups here since you've been gone -- one about the use of passive in the Judaism and Luther paragraph of the intro and the other on condensing footnotes. I'd appreciate your comments on the talk page. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now, I'll be very interested in seeing the results of your work. On the nailed thing, it would be odd that he wouldn't have done it (or so Brecht thinks). The church door was kind of like the university bulletin boards. Back then they didn't have tacks or staples, so they used nails. I'm sure he had to move an Octoberfest poster to get it up! The National Geographic article of 1983 on Luther has a painting that gets close to it all -- kids playing, peasants talking, bartering with the butcher (if I remember correctly) and in the background at a door with dozens of notices in a monk tapping at a nail fastening the document to the door. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thor of the Door! I love it! It fits the old Luther movie with 150 voice choir singing "A Mighty Fortress" as he pounds away. Having read the debates back and forth, I'm convinced with Brecht that it actually happened, but that it simply was not intended -- nor received in 1517 as a big deal. It became so only when the Flugschriften let loose and did their thing... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pisanello

Thanks for the compliment! ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Impact... BANG!

What does Fowler say about the word impact, especially in the sense of these decisions will impact our children? Rintrah 12:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler himself never mentioned it—I presume because it was little used in his day. In my opinion, the usage is unexceptionable when literal, as with an impacted tooth; but the metaphorical use is vile.

Just to illustrate why Burchfield is so dreary, here is his advice, followed by a more bracing comment from Wilson Follett:

It seems advisable to refrain from using the verb in ordinary non-scientific and non-medical contexts—at least for the present. It is very likely that it will pass into uncontested standard use as time goes on. (Burchfield, The New Fowler.)

A bad verb robs the whole sentence of movement. There can be no doubt that the absence of deductibility will impact our work in the coming year. This statement warns of some sort of trouble ahead, and a good verb would tell us what kind or how much. But who can tell whether impact has stolen the place of curtail or cripple or force suspension of or make altogether pointless? And any one of these verbs would not only inform us but also make the sentence move. A faint awareness that the verb is a dud has led to the stilted impact on, which only enlarges a waste of good space. (Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage.)

I would add that in literal usage the noun means something different from the verb. The noun means the striking of one thing against another; the verb means to pack firmly together.

--qp10qp 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Core policies?

Since you were part of the earlier debate about this on WT:ATT, please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Thank you. (Radiant) 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fin. Civil War

Hello, I saw you finished copyediting the article. It passed FA today, I am planning to submit it to featured article of the day. However, I don't think I'm able to create a well done front-page box text about it. Are you willing to help? I will get back to this tomorrow. --Pudeo (Talk) 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen a guide page atleast, I just searched and didn't find anything. But look Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2006. You know how to write but you atleast need some help with knowledge about the civil war? Or can you get all from the article? I don't think the text has to be that perfect, except ofcourse grammar and good sentences.

I thought about making an easy one out the lead. I had to cut it a lot, and it isn't very good or comprehensive. It's about OK in lenght. So please, if you can help, make a better one. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it should be on talk page. The application process is at zero, however, when the article now is FA, only that text needs to be done. Then I will put the text and an image to the "requests FA of the day" and hope that it is chosen. Do you think it's fine? Then I should just make the request?

I submitted the article after I tried some things out. As you said it seems fine and so I think too. Check here: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Finnish_Civil_War --Pudeo (Talk) 12:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anton Chekhov

Did you read the article before tagging it, or just copy the out-of-date tag above? I see no advantage in under-rating an article. qp10qp 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew you had expanded it quite a bit. However, I feel it should go through due process (GA, peer review, FA nomination) before a higher rating is warranted. GA-grade requires succesful nomination for GA, I believe a peer review is at least required for A-level, and a successful FA nomination is required for FA-grade. When going through due process, the article will benefit from the combined knowledge of all editors on Wikipedia, not just yours (as impressive as it may be). And this process is something you can do yourself as well, but I think you'll need to wait a bit before going to GA, because that requires the article to be stable, and you are still working on it. Until then, I'll stick with B-rating, which is already quite good in itself. Errabee 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You might wish to adjust the tone in which you address other editors; I didn't particularly like the tone of your comment on my talk page. Errabee 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my tone, which is, I think, justifiably cold; but I am always polite.

You are quite right that the article doesn't require a further assessment at this moment, which is why it was superfluous of you to give it one; it was already rated a B; all the work has been intended to raise it above a B. What is the point of giving it another B?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that even though the article can't be assessed at an A because it hasn't gone through other processes, it can be reassessed at a B. I don't follow. It was already assessed at a B, so how does giving it a second B tag help? Almost every word of the article has changed since it was assessed at a B, by the way, so if you just copied the existing tag, that is of no help, either. If my tone is cold it is because your edit history reveals that you labelled this (and many other articles) all at once, without having time to read them. What is the point of that?

As far as the article being unstable because it is still being edited is concerned, I agree only insofar as it won't be ready to be proposed for an FA for a few weeks yet, when it will get the necessary improvement advice of other editors. A tag without any improvement advice seems to me unhelpful. On the other hand, from here on, the changes to the article need only be minor, because the subject is fully covered using biographies, articles, and fictional works. Now must come a concentrated attempt at compelling prose and at the finer points of scholarly controversy; for example, today I was working on the slightly differing views of scholars about Olga Knipper's pregnancy.

qp10qp 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the rating system. Point of the rating system is that because I gave that B-rating it ended up in the category Category:B-Class Russia articles. If I hadn't given the B-rating, it would have ended up in the category Category:Unassessed Russia articles, which is silly as it has been assessed. It would also be a bit silly if two projects rate the quality of the same article differently, so the Biography qualify rating and the Russia quality rating have to be aligned. Since the article didn't meet my criteria for GA-class, A-class or FA-class, it still got rated as B-class.

I understand the rating system; I don't understand an article having two ratings of B. One B will do. To just copy the rating, without properly assessing the article and giving the editors points to address is unhelpful. Explain how it helps the article.

Because of these criteria, I can assess an article quite fast, without going into detail. GA-class and FA-class are already identified by the appropriate tags, and A-class articles that underwent a peer review but didn't receive FA-grade or GA-grade are not that common. That leaves only the distinction between B-class, Start-class and Stub-class. Usually, it doesn't take me too long to make up my mind between those three classes. And of course, if I were to disagree with an already given rating, something big needed to have happened, as it did to Chekhov, but that was B-class already.

In effect, then, you want to make the point that that the article is Russian or under the umbrella of a Russian project. You can do that without grading it.

BTW, I don't agree with your statement that your tone was justifiably cold; it was cold, but not justifiably so. It seems to me that you don't assume good faith. If you got upset about the quality assessment, I'm sorry about that, but the proper thing to do was to ask why I had given that assessment, and not to accuse me of not looking at the article.

No one was upset. I always assume good faith. I don't doubt that you labelled the article in good faith. I am always polite. You have a tone too, by the way, but I'm only interested in the substance of what you're saying.

Now I'm through with defending myself. I wish you good luck with the work on Anton Chekhov, and urge you to consider becoming more friendly and less aggressive in your communications. That will ultimately also help in getting Anton Chekhov up to FA-class, as aggressive responses to criticism will tend to sway the vote away from the desired result. Errabee 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I assess FAs myself. I'm never aggressive. You are mistaking assertiveness for aggressiveness. I love addressing criticisms of articles; but you have made none of Anton Chekhov yet, except that the article may be unstable. qp10qp 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Just one last response from me, and that's it. Yes I have a tone myself. Did you consider that that tone is a reflection of how I perceive your message? Yes I want to make the point that the article is under the umbrella of the WikiProject Russia. And no, I can't do that without grading it, because then we would not get the article in the category category:B-Class Russia articles, and also not appropriately tagged on the project's worklist. And it seems to me that you are mistaking politeness with assuming good faith. Thank you for increasing my stress levels. Errabee 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your query. There is no need to hectically spam it on user talk pages of Ukrainian editors like this. Some may consider it rude. What makes you think that a Ukrainian editor who edits Wikipedia once a month is more clueful on the subject than a Russian editor who edits Wikipedia every day? Furthermore, I advise you to write articles using secondary sources. Primary sources may not pass the definition of WP:RS and your efforts to make some research on the subject is contrary to WP:OR. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Even though I thought you would be one of the best people to ask about this, I didn't ask you directly on your user page because I knew you might regard it as spamming. Instead I asked at the Russian portal and the pages of some people who had commented on the particular article page (the reason I asked around was because I thought I wasn't going to get a reply). By the way, I don't think it's original research to ask people for help in explaining information found or quoted in secondary sources; I expect to ask for more such help in future. qp10qp 21:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Qp10qp! As far as I know, Chekhov was not Ukrainian. He was definitely Russian by language and culture. He might have some Ukrainian roots, but I never heard about it. Sorry, I could not help you with any detailed information.--AndriyK 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Chekhovы grandmother was an Ukrainian. He named sometimes itself Ukrainian. [3] --Yakudza 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, Yakuzda. I think Ghirla, Alex, and AndriyK have sorted this out for me now. Ghirla has explained that the word Chekhov used was khokhol, which is probably untranslatable. My problem is that I don't read Russian and am at the mercy of translations: I have one translation of Chekhov's phrase as "I am a Ukrainian" and another as "I am a Little Russian". It is slightly difficult for me to ask questions about this without making myself look rather stupid, unfortunately. I wish you a happy and a wiki new year! qp10qp 16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thank you for the Barnstar. I wish you a Happy Christmas and all the best for the New Year 2007 !. --Ilummeen 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Vienna

Hi, please see 'Forces' section (discussion) in the Siege of Vienna article. Lysandros 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Jerry Klein Islamophobia experiment be deleted?

As you have contributed to the Islamophobia article, please consider visiting Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody where Jerry Klein acted as if he was for forcing American-Muslims to wear special identification marks, similar to the Jews in Nazi Germany. This was to gauge his audience’s reaction and he was shocked by the calls he received. It is currently being debated if the page should be deleted. Please read the article and vote at [4]. Thank You.Wowaconia 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The writing, indeed

Thank you! :-) I'm glad there's someone who cares about caring about the writing. It makes all those "watch the writing!!!" edit summaries worthwhile. Seriously, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too, Qp10qp. *Fist of respect* Some time ago, in the near past, I entertained myself alone with that interest; and now it has grow into a fellowship. Thank you also for the help you have given me. Rintrah 04:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: I hope we don't get too polarised

Qp10qp wrote:

Please don't take the attacks on misuse of IRC personally.

It's difficult not to when so many claims regarding "all channel users" are being made which, if taken literally, accuse me, personally, of doing all sorts of things.

I'm sure you're one of the genuine guys (as are most users) and responsible in the way you use IRC.

Put that in the past tense. "Used". I thought I was, but then so did most other people. Again, I am responding to claims that everyone is guilty of misconduct in one way or another; if I am, then I would very much like to know why. Although (as far as I'm aware) I have only been indirectly accused, I have been accused nevertheless.

Those arguing against it can't realistically expect to end its use,

I would contest that at the moment, that is precisely what they do expect. I expect it too, mainly because it's already happening. I made an early exit which in retrospect was well-timed; many others have followed.

but I hope the debate at least alerts editors to the concerns and leads to a sense of good form developing (or even a voluntary code-of-conduct), whereby people interrupt and say, "Hey, that's off limits", or whatever.

The way things are currently going, it's more likely that people will be reluctant to discuss anything in any off-Wiki medium. Except for those abusing the system, who as a result of this argument really will be able to do so 'in private', without the neutral parties that have been present until now – as they have all been forced to leave.

I'm sure those recently traduced on IRC would rather be arguing with the villains of the piece than with guys like you, who wrongly find themselves taking the flak on the latter's behalf. qp10qp 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am responding only to accusations directed at "all channel users". I will of course respond to accusations directed at me personally should I become aware of any. If they do not wish to discuss matters with me, they need to stop claiming that I am in some way responsible – Gurch 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

[5]. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC).