I archive as-and-when the page gets too long. I will reply on your talk page, and if the conversation is important, I will copy it all into my talk page as an easily-readable record for the future. I may reformat conversations to make them easier to read. I will not delete any comments made here unless they are obviously simple personal attacks against myself or anyone else; in that case, I will censor just those bits, leaving the rest of the message intact. I will never delete criticism of myself or any other user if it is made politely. If you wish to contact me more privately, I do have email enabled, although I hope that my conduct is such that this feature will be used sparingly.
As someone who has expressed an interest in Jan Smuts in the past, I thought you might be interested to know that Jan Smuts's youth, covering his childhood and early adulthood (1870-1895), is under consideration for Featured Article status. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated.
Hi, Batmanand. I’m here hoping you can reconsider your view in Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Bellow, I’ll explain my position on the matter.
First I'd like to say that, according to WP naming conventions, the choice of the name for the articles should not be a matter of "one POV" over "another POV". The question is not if the entity has any "right" to call herself CC, but if CC is the best name for the article according to WP guidelines. According to the guidelines, any POV issues should be resolved inside the articles – and not by the choice of its name.
You said that "when most people in the West say "Catholic Church" they mean the Church of Rome; but that is not necessarily indicative of what the rest of the world thinks." That's true. However, the official WP policy says that: article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize... (emphasis mine). AFAIK, English speakers typically live in the west, or at least have strong contact with Western culture.
(As a side-note, Eastern English speakers might even be more aware of the inadequacy of the modifier "Roman" when applyed to the CC as a whole, because of the closer contact with the non-roman Eastern Rite part of the Catholic Church).
When more objective procedures are applied, the results so far seem always to favor CC over RCC. For example: no one has come up with a good rebuttal of Vaquero's analysis in CC vs. RCC.
What is your opinion on this grammatical puzzler: should the two "German Occupation of Luxembourg" articles say "... of Luxembourg in World War I/II" or "... of Luxembourg during World War I/II"? I have been thinking over it for a good few minutes, but cannot come to an answer. It seems natural to ask either "what did you do in the war?" or "what did you do during the war?"; although I suppose the former suggests that you were in the war itself, whilst the second is perhaps concerned with the time period the war was in. I suppose in that case maybe we should come to a decision on whether the military occupations were part of the wars, or happened contemporaneously? Batmanand | Talk00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a difference between the two adjectives (in this sense, specifically), and, originally, I believed that the articles should be moved to 'during', to reflect just that distinction. However, I have since changed my mind on the grounds that the German occupation was an intrinsic part of the war. This was certainly the case in the Second World War, and to quite a degree in the first (German high command was in Luxembourg City, Clausen was bombed by the RAF, Luxembourg's evacuation was a term of the Armistice, thousands of Luxembourgers did fight, etc).
Another question is that of the general case. The reason that they were titled as such in the first place was that they were being standardised with other occupations in the Second World War. Although (IMO) Luxembourg was a part of the World Wars, other countries might not be classified as having been, yet would still be burdened by the incorrect adjective ('in') for the purposes of standardisation. 'During' is applicable whether one is part of the war or apart, so would probably be preferable for the entire article series, such that it might then embrace those countries that weren't actively engaged. Bastin 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi David. I waded briefly into the discussion about the main page article count a couple of weeks back, and opposed your decision to remove it from the top of the page. I have not been involved more recently, but have followed the discussions as they have unfolded, and still am of the opinion that you are wrong. However, or perhaps furthermore, I am disgusted by the personal attacks, the lack of good faith, the incivility, the plain, old-fashioned rudeness that has been displayed by those who seem to share my opinion on the matter. You have been subjected to vitriolic hatred, and I am sorry for that. I am ashamed that there are those who cannot argue cogently and politely who are "on my side".
I am glad to note that you yourself have behaved impeccably. I feel it is important that someone who disagrees with you can come forward and say that the behaviour of others who disagree with you is wrong, and should not be tolerated. I hope you understand that - leaving the dispute itself aside - you most certainly have my whole-hearted support in the way you have conducted yourself. Batmanand | Talk14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your kind words. I always make it a point to view people on an individual basis (not based upon their positions on particular issues or the conduct of those who happen to agree with them). In other words, rest assured that I would never lump you together with the likes of Juicifer or condemn your viewpoint because it happens to overlap with his.
I truly am attempting to gauge consensus (or lack thereof) and help to apply it appropriately, and I'm especially glad to know that not all of my opponents believe that I'm acting in bad faith. Thanks again for reassuring me of this. It's also nice to be reminded that some people are still capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable. :-) —David Levy15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juicifer, I agree with you with regards to the matter of whether or not the article count should be at the top of the Main Page. However, edits such as this are totally unacceptable, and not only do huge damage to the credibility of the point of view we are both parties to, but are also in themselves explicitly against allsortsofpolicies. Because of the sheer vitriol of the above diff, I have decided to formally warn you. I am sorry to have to do this, but I cannot see another way:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Batmanand | Talk15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not prone to personal attacks, but sometimes mockery is the only way. Specifically, in dealing with people that wont debate constructivly anyway. I wanted to put the fullest possible stop to the matter and make him realise that I was not movable on the subject of needing a vote in any way. Sometimes I just feel like breaking the rules to save time, but yes you are correct. juicifer17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but 1. there are rules that can be broken (perhaps in the spirit of WP:IAR), and then there are things so basic as courtesy and WP:NPA which should never, ever be broken and 2. the scale of you personal attack I felt was above and beyond mere "annoyance". I appreciate the fact that you admit that you have done wrong, and I hope you now stop, but that does not mean that the original act was right. I hope this is the end of the matter, and that the real issue, of what to do to article count, can now be resolved harmoniously. Batmanand | Talk18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look a number of people had been trying to pin him down on the matter for 2 weeks and rather that making or responding to substantive points, discussing both sided of the issue etc, he simply kept responding with with word-games pedantry and obfuscation. I get the feeling that he would happily go on forever. Indeed he wore out zoggy and a number of other contributors with his trolling, and they dropped out of the debate begging others to take up the reigns. His behaviour has been utterly insufferable, as an admin he should be straightforward and productive, my response was not writ en not in anger but as a calculated way to put an end to the matter. I don't believe he would now be brazen enough to change it back without a strong consensus. That is all want, I think that has been achieved, and if I have underestimated his zealotry, he must know that he will only end up looking very very silly indeed. juicifer18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your attitude - that if a first you cannot win an argument by reason, resort to personal attacks - utterly wrong. However, given that David Levy himself seems less concerned with you attacks than me, I am going to say no more on the matter. Batmanand | Talk18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason needs to be a two way street. I tried reason and recieved patronizing pedantry again and again (which again, comprises the bulk of his fisking). Life is too short for endless polite conversation with timewaster IMHO. Thank you again for your advice. juicifer19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Batmanand!
Thanks! It certainly is a fascinating concept. And I must say I've really enjoyed the resulting conversation - I'll use the Reference Desk more often now. My teachers frequently complain about the questions I ask! --Fir000210:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the cosmic energy rubbish. Yes, it's rubbish. The problem is, everything from Osmanagic and his Foundation is rubbish. See the talk page for the continued discussion on this. --Ronz03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your changes will make it easier to pull the claims out of the intro and put in the proper sections of the article. The claim is actually made by Osmanagic, so it's a bit misleading with the "some commentators" inclusion, but easily fixed when the intro is cleaned up. Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation is the group controlling the promotion and management of the "pyramids". I don't think we've had any problems with them directly with editing Wikipedia, but they're responsible for almost all of the English-language news about the "pyramids" via their press releases that most news agencies print without the slightest fact checking. So far, Archeology magazine is the only source we have (that I can recall top-of-my-head) that has actually investigated the claims of the Foundation in any depth. The Foundation's tactics besides controlling as much of the information as possible is to directly attack anyone that holds an opinion contrary to theirs. To date, the Foundation's claims beyond the "pyramids" existance and locations are extremely vague: information on the age, structure, size, builders, etc all vary from report to report, one report often contradicting another, with no attempt to clarify the claims and providing little or no verifiable information on what the claims are based upon. --Ronz14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow. I didnt think I would see the day when wikipedia was censored just like the web in China. Also, maybe just maybe you could give people some TIME to continue working on the page and finish it, at least to the best of their ability, before deleting it. Saatana10:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
um....quite honestly I see no place in my post that could be taken as a personal attack but whatever man. I have found that a great many of the people on here are delusional, egotistical bastards who do not care about the others on here and what their opinions are. You say stuff like "happy editing" and "I will be glad to help" but that's just a bunch of bullshit. (Again this is not a personal attack, just a broad statement of what my dealings with people here have showed me so far.) And as to my experiences here, not only have they not been "not entirely positive", but have downright sucked. Saatana11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok I am sorry but I saw you're comment on how [FT] isn't significant inside or outside the counterstrike community and on this you are just wrong. [FT] IS significant inside the counterstrike community because we have been around for longer than something like 97% of all gaming clans. Also, it is our original server FTC2 that the <DAWG> clan was a major part of. Also [FT] servers are not only places to play counterstrike but also are places to chill with friends and have a good time—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.66.38 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but that was not me who added that comment. I completely agree with it but I did not add it. Perhaps wiki got confused because I have had this page opened the entire time. Saatana11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Batmanand, just want to fill you in on this issue...before you had PRODded the article, it had been speedied twice and almost instantly recreated. The AfD was closed as a speedy. Just thought you'd like to know. Akradecki13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your addition to the Martin Luther intro. I might be inclined to change it a little because having a graduate masters in Luther's theology I know that Luther was not a radical reformer. Your are right though to say that his view are "radical" in a sense. Luther, though, is considered by Reformation scholars as a "conservative" reformer. I think that the bit about being a controversial figure is a good point that you have made here.--Drboisclair16:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is a good addition about him or his legacy being controversial. Perhaps better would be "As a result of this, his revolutionary theological views, and the Reformation his legacy remains a controversial one." This might be revised by some of the other editors; however, I believe that you add an important point to the lead-in intro.--Drboisclair17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I am not capturing what you are trying to do here. You are saying: "As a result [of all of what Luther said and did] ... his legacy remains a controversial one", so scratch my suggestion above. Everything about the man was controversial. I think that it is a good way to end the intro. Let's see what the other editors do with it.--Drboisclair17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through our Archives I saw that you took an interest in the Adopt-a-user program during its formation and development. Well this is just a quick message to tell you the program is well and truly lifted off, with over 200 users involved in the program, 50+ active Adopters and approx. 150 Adoptees, and always expanding. If your still interested please pop by WP:ADOPT, have a look around and ask any questions you want on our talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. Cheers Lethaniol15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some sorries: firstly, sorry for bothering you; secondly, sorry that this is a bit of a form letter (although, actually, it has been exquisitely personalized for you in at least two places); and thirdly, that I come over as a mad or maddish person suffering from some form of OCD ... which, unfortunately, is about right.
I'm writing to ask if you would please consider correcting the spelling of Clement Attlee on your page here:
where it is currently misspelt Clement Atlee. Please?
Since I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this, I see it often - probably more often than is healthy - in searches and so on. Your correcting it would not only very slightly improve the sum of correct human knowledge, but would also lessen the chances of my suddenly attacking someone on the Tube for snoring, pushing, spitting, sniffing, reading the wrong novel, or whatever - so really it is a double benefit to personkind. I could also attempt to bribe you with Linzertorte, though it would have to be virtual unless you can easily make it to London, EC1 in order to be bribed in person.
I can't tell me how happy it would make me if you would please correct this small but (I think) important matter.
In fact, I see that you have not edited for some time. I am unsure about the rightness of editing a userpage but this is rather a small spelling correction, rather than a change of meaning. So, if you don't mind, I will leave it a few days for a response, just in case, and then change it for you, in the hope that this is generally a helpful and positive move. If you domind, I will no doubt be hearing from you. :) Thanks and best wishesDBaK (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a week has elapsed; in addition, I have now read your nice notice about good-faith editing of your user page, so I will change it per that and all above here. Thanks and best wishes to you, DBaK (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:SLL map of schools dec 2011.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:SLL map of schools dec 2011.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]
Hi. When you recently edited Saving Londoners' Lives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Batmanand: I reviewed this and a reference is needed for the hook fact. I also noted some other concerns and a query about the origins of the programme - though that doesn't affect its DYK eligibility. I'll check back at the nomination page; hoping that this can be passed soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:SLL map of schools dec 2011.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:SLL map of schools dec 2011.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
»saudações! 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Saving Londoners' Lives at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:FPR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
