User talk:SamuelTheGhost

It is reliably reported that John the Baptist was a hamster. Really.

Preached in the wilderness Matthew 3:1

John the Baptist had the same tailor as Elijah. (Compare Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6 with NIV:2 Kings 1:8, HE:2 Kings 1:8, KJV:2 Kings 1:8)

Preached repentance to avoid the day of judgement Mark 1:4 "kingdom of heaven" Matthew 3:2 and punishment of the wicked Matthew 3:10 Luke 3:7–9

Positive ethical guidance Luke 3:10–14

It was claimed he fulfilled prophecy of Isaiah Matthew 3:3 Luke 3:4 John 1:23

Faint praise for Moses and Law John 1:17

Dismissive of all pride in race or ancestry Matthew 3:9 Luke 3:8

nb(HE): 1:1–6 nolang: Genesis 1:1–6 nolang: Mark 1:1–6 nolang: Tobit 1:1–6 BB(polyglot - can get SEP): Genesis 1:1–6 HE: Genesis 1:1–6 vulgate: Genesis 1:1–6 Douay-Rheims: Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT: Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT(1550): Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT: Mark 1:1–6 NAB: Tobit 1:1–6

Wikimedia user edit counter

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

On Ten Commandments you have been making edits to the effect that Sinai and Horeb are different mountains. This is in complete contrast with generally accepted interpretations, according to which these are two names for the same mountain. I think it would be better if you'd discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments first. There may be a problem with emphasis that we need to address. For one thing: which sources can you provide that Horeb and Sinai are different mountains? JFW | T@lk 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I did not revert your links, in the first place, but you ask which policy controls links? It took me a long time to find this out when I needed to know.

To lift from "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)"

"Do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"

"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article... ... Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

"However, duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate ... ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection."

The link is, and should be, in the introductory para, and when the main text gets round to it in line 65 - the others are optional. I note you have reinstated 3 links, all at least 10 lines apart, whereas you originally added 6 - IMHO the balance is now about right

Arjayay (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, very useful. Let's just hope that Van helsing agrees with you.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot 12:41, 17 May 2008 CmdrObot (Talk | contribs) m (3,819 bytes) (sp: mens→men's) (undo) changed "mens divinor" in the Alexander Anderson (poet) article to "men's divinor". But the original was correct. It's Latin. I think it means "a mind more divine", or something like that, although the phrase doesn't appear to be in common use now. Perhaps it should have been italicised. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for that. I try to watch out for Latin phrases like that (most recently I saw one in Catullus 68 for example), but I guess sometimes one must slip through the net. I've now added the Anderson one to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite, it needed it badly. --Karuna8 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be established in the introduction which god the article is talking about, without having to click on wikilinks. Ben (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on article talk page SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [1].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [2].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know having seen you moved Tomkins to Tompkins Plc, this is against Wiki naming policy [[3]], edit history for article shows it was moved from Tompkins plc to Tompkins previously, and FTSE 250 Index list also every other firm has no plc in title. So Ive reverted it ( I had thought that companies would be designated by Plc , Ltd etc till I found otherwise looking at edit histories / discussions) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after editing it and leaving message for you, I realised its not as simple, as you say could get a tangle (solved one and then get 2 problems) [[Tompkins plc|Tompkins would fix the list but not the article, so apologies for barging in, I'll let you resolve it then as Wikiepedia has this great habit of dragging you off at a tangent when you see something and try to fix it quickly. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will find such situations less surprising in the future. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, I've seen sources for both Lisa's and Jerry's passages. Can't we just tag everything so we can fix the page? This tit for tat isn't going to work very well. Because, it's hard to cite something that's invisible.

Also, should we put this into a NPOV category?Tim (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mishpatim, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Meldshal42? 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I was just notifying you. I didn't write the message, it is written in {{uw-vandalism1}}. Cheers, --Meldshal42? 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the edit was vandalism, I said it was unconstructive. Please calm down. I apologize for making a rude comment. But what was the intention of the edit? --Meldshal42? 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry! i had a bug with my computer that messed this up. i apologize, and thanks for my tolerating that. Man, that was a huge mistake! Thanks, --Meldshal42? 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing essentials to move out of "stub" category are:

• infobox
• picture/cover (original or 1st edition is preferable) for either or both versions presented
• external sources or references to the book
• lists of contributors might not be helpful, unless they're wikilinked, but it's still ok to put them in.

Just a few thoughts...SkierRMH (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. SmackBot just added a reference section and reflist to Bianco (surname). It's harmless, but in this case also pointless. Is there a reason? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the inofbox was broken Rich Farmbrough, 22:21 30 August 2008 (GMT).

It wasn't I who introduced that sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"mainstream" is a word to avoid because it indicates that the Bates method might somehow be scientific, which all but the most tried-and-true believers acknowledge it is not. The scientific evidence comes from various Opthamology Texts. For example. "Scientific evidence" is a catch-all term for the facts elucidated by a huge discipline. It's not simply a viewpoint that this is what causes vision loss: evidence-based medicine requires a connection to data and scientific evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The evidence is reported in standard opthamology texts. The persistence of the various forms of ametropia is attributed in all the texts referenced to anatomical, not physiological, conditions. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand what evidence means perfectly well. As far as Wikipedia goes, we need reliable, verifiable sources that are not unduly synthesized by fringe proponents with obvious agendas. Unfortunately, this is not yet to be had at this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry I was tired and distracted by non-Wikipedia things so I got confused about the edit history. I still don't understand why maize has been unilaterally declared to be the primary meaning of corn. It depends entirely on who you are, where you are and what you are hearing or reading. As someone pointed out, a lot of people in this world read the bible, for example, and none of the many occurrences of the word corn in the bible refer to maize. Anyway, I give up. Wikipedia is clearly going to be a US-centric encyclopaedia. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't last long, did it? I suppose I'm addicted. At least to trivial copy editing. I have never been good at adding content anyway, so maybe I should just stay away from that. Thanks for the encouragement anyway! Rachel Pearce (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I suggest you read the past discussions on these problems, and make sure you understand WP:V and WP:NOT. We're writing an encyclopedia article here. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, Ronz, I quite understand. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelTheGhost. I'm glad to see you contributing regularly at Bates method. I placed a tag on the "Ophthalmological Research" section as a way of effectively stating what you attempted to point out here. At this point I don't really think this is worth taking up further but at least the reader will be cautioned. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelTheGhost. I have copied most of Margaret Darst Corbett, the current version of which you created entirely, into the "After Bates" section of Bates method. You could be a big help with that section as you seem to have Pollack's book. I am hoping that more of its text will turn up online somewhere. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with the merge if it stays like that. Yes, I have Pollack's book. I've carried out some test searches of its text in google and they deliver results for chapter 3 only, so I'm fairly sure there's no more of it on the net. If you ask me direct questions about its content, I'll answer them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually e-mailed Quackwatch to suggest putting more chapters up, but Stephen Barrett responded that he doesn't have the book. Google books has a searchable "snippet view" version, and I linked to that for the references to Corbett. I think Pollack will be a major source for the expansion of the "After Bates" section, so your help will be appreciated. We will probably need a different citation for each reference due to the limitations of the Google Books version (since the book is rare, it seems only fair to confirm things for the reader when we can.) Perhaps we could add a subsection about Harold Peppard? Also, the lead of that section needs to be improved. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused by your reference to Pollack as "rare". I bought my copy on abebooks (http://www.abebooks.com/ or http://www.abebooks.co.uk/) in May this year for ten dollars; I observe that there are now just two copies there for sale, both at $100 or more, so I had a bargain. As for the article, I'm getting a little worried about the pruning of the Corbett section. In particular, the source for her own opinion should be directly one of her own three books. Have you got any of them? If not, I've got two of them, and could sort out some pithy phrase to use. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately I don't have any of Corbett's books. Experience leads me to believe that a quote as long as the one that was there will be frowned upon, especially if there's no secondary source for it. Of course we can reference Corbett's books, but we should also use as many "independent" sources as we can. Elwin Marg actually quotes her at some length, so that may help. And somewhere there must be news articles about the case. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing for the Corbett section still seems a bit unclear. For example, is Pollack the source for the entire discussion of the legal case? And what is the source for Corbett consulting Bates about her husband's eyesight? I'm thinking about nominating Bates method for a Good article in the near future, but the "After Bates" section still needs some work. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• is Pollack the source for the entire discussion of the legal case? - unfortunately, yes.
• And what is the source for Corbett consulting Bates about her husband's eyesight? - Pollack again, I'm afraid. He gives it as something she said in court during the trial.

Corbett avoids saying anything about her own history in her books, and the publisher's blurb only tells us that she was a pupil of Bates, ran her "School of Eye Education", and that her students included "Aldous Huxley, John Dos Passos and Harold Heffernan". There may be some better source for her, but I haven't found it. Of course a search of the press around the time of the trial would certainly yield stuff, but I guess it would be hard work finding it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the Google news archives doesn't seem to yield anything about the case, though there are a few mentions of Corbett. I really wish more of Pollack's book would show up online somewhere! For now, perhaps you could make the referencing more clear in the section? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an RfC regarding the use of the word "fair" in NPOV which I thought you might be interested in, in light of past discussions. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I need to ponder the question for a little time before deciding whether and how to comment. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelTheGhost, I understand that things are heated at this guideline and the related noticeboard. I am asking all editors to do what they can to de-escalate the dispute at this point. In your own case, I would ask that (1) you avoid using emotionally-charged language such as "ignorant"; (2) that you avoid edit-warring; and (3) that you ensure that you are engaging at talkpages. And as an extra credit #4, it would be nice if you created a userpage.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you're watching this page, so I'll reply here.

1. In general, I agree that words like "ignorant" are to be avoided. In this context, however, I was referring to his implicit characterization of me personally. He knows nothing about me, so "ignorant" is precisely the right word.
2. Indeed. I don't think I have in this case, and I don't intend to.
3. I have already made some remarks in the relevant talkpages. If I make any further contribution on this topic, it will be there.
4. I'll create a userpage if and when I find the need. That time has not yet come.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see him specifically referring to you. Is there some other interchange of which I am unaware? --Elonka 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has been no other interchange. At the time I wrote that message, his words were "The ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects" [5] which clearly includes me. I note that he has refactored at your behest, and thank you for that. I don't think I have acted wrongly, but I'm very willing to let the matter drop and move on. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was easy to be civil when calling a spade a spade. I think he did a fairly good job when he changed his comments though.

The problem with even attempting it in edit summaries is that you can't change them later. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article, not to gossip about other editors. If you are concerned with allegations of conflicts of interest, please do so in a proper forum. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL again! This is making my day! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can learn to follow Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said that you are intrigued by my username, I'll explain it. My selection of a username which refers to Bates' book was partly tongue-in-cheek, since I have seen "Bates cultists" derided by skeptics, mainly on sci.med.vision. But around the time I signed up here, I had also been influenced by some individuals in online communities who could perhaps aptly be termed "Bates cultists", though I'm not convinced that they're wrong. These people believe that Bates' unaltered writings remain the best source of information about vision improvement, and that he did not exaggerate his success in the clinic, but that subsequent Bates teachers failed to get his caliber of results because they diluted the method. Someone characterized the 1943 revision of the book as being "corrupted". I'm now somewhat less inclined toward this viewpoint than I was when I started editing the article, and really I have become more doubtful about the Bates method in general. I've experienced mild temporary improvements which could be explained as ciliary spasm, and more dramatic temporary improvements which may result from a natural contact lens caused by moisture. Which is why I created the "Claimed success" section. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel, I enjoyed reading your comment on my talk page. I haven't responded because I believe it's DGG's turn. :) I think the issue of elitism, and the related questions and issues of how sources and articles should be evaluated is at the heart of many of the disputes here. There is a divide, as you've recognized, between the academic, scientific, "fringe", and mass audiences. I think it's interesting to see how it plays out on Wikipedia, and the discussion was my effort to dialog with someone who seems to use an ends justify the means approach to advance the scientific academic sphere without recognizing the contributions and value of other spheres of knowledge. Take care and Happy Thanksgiving, even if you're not one of us American turkeys. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best that your remove or heavily refactor your accusations against unnamed editors here: [6]. Again, article talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article, not to attack or harass other editors. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz, nice to hear from you. I'm afraid I see no reason to remove what I said. As for "heavily refactoring", that would merely be to describe a spade as a horticultural implement, so I don't see the point.

If you feel you have been harassed, I apologise. That was not my intention. However, given the long history of discussions on this topic, and my desire (which I presume you share) to bring ZapperNapper up to speed on it all, it seems legitimate to summarise some of the previous discussion on particular issues.

I take it that "wikilawyering driven by anti-Bates POV pushing" is the phrase you don't like. I have to say that I see "I think it would be best to use the sources we have to discuss how absurd the Bates method truly is" as an explicit desire to push an anti-Bates POV. As for wikilawyering, I think that fundamental policies (NPOV, RS, V) both allow and require, in this case, the use of modern pro-Bates source, properly contextualised, as evidence of what the Bates method now means. Thus it is fair to characterise the many references which have been made to other, less fundamental, policies in order to prevent that use as "wikilawyering". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unable to follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, then you might just want to stop editing Wikipedia altogether. Otherwise, you'll likely find yourself extremely frustrated with the problems that you cause and the actions taken by others to resolve them. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting essay applicable to the above discussion: User:Abd/Majority_POV-pushing. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you presented a strong case for making corn into an article and separating out corn (disambiguation), could you perhaps weigh in on the talk page. It's not a huge issue, but an editor wants to reframe the language to emphasize the primacy of the maize meaning. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it was the sobering effect of being blocked or the numbing effect of my verbiage, but things seem to have calmed down. Let's hope it lasts. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that these were Huxley's own words affirms my beleif it's better to be more general - it likely was punctate keratitis, but b/c it's not like we can just go get his medical records, keratitis can suffuce - besides that level of specifity is kind of unneeded. BTW, cute Robo hamster. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bearer of bad news come to let us know we've been forsaken? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing a history merge to fix a very old cut and paste move from corn to maize. The first few revisions of corn (disambiguation) (originally at the title corn) were moved by cut and paste to maize back in June 2002. Graham87 12:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment at User:Citation bot/bugs, the place to discuss the issue is Template talk:Cite book. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelTheGhost. Thank you very much for posting the information about the Woods report in Behavioral optometry and on the Bates method talk page. I am increasingly thinking that the "Ophthalmological Research" section as it is should be deleted from the Bates method article, for reasons which you have raised before. I've thought for a while that the section was misleading and a distraction, but only recently have I sorted out exactly what the problem is. There's no indication from the AAO report (which the section is mainly a summary of) that any of the reviewed studies tested any method which has actually been claimed to improve eyesight. Now if we could find records of a formal controlled study in which a Bates teacher participated, working with subjects while a third-party measured results, that would merit a lot of space in the article. But I'm not sure that has ever happened. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. If I discover such a study, I will certainly let you and Wikipedia know. But I suspect that there isn't one. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you then support deleting the Ophthalmological Research section from the article? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that it's already gone. On balance, I think that that's an improvement. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I merged and condensed it into "Modern Variants". I don't know if that will stick, though. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the support regarding the Bates method template, and for your contributions to the article in the past year. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memo to SamuelTheGhost: I have noted the above harassment in the MedCab case. Even if it fails to resolve anything, its archive will at least be useful in documenting Ronz's misconduct should that be necessary. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the misconduct? --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've indicated before, Ronz, I'm done trying to explain this to you. However I still hold out hope that someone else will succeed. Otherwise I suppose administrative action may give you some insight. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as those at 19:18 and 23:16 above only escalates the problems without addressing anything related to making the article better. When you're willing to focus on improving the article again, I'm waiting. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The first step toward improving the article is to have tags which are as informative as possible regarding what the perceived problems are. The current warning banner is simply not. Eleven days ago, in Talk:Bates_method#Primary_sources_tag, I provided text for custom templates which you could use to specify the concerns that you have previously expressed regarding neutrality and original research. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave the tags issue on one side for a little while, and discuss things in broader terms so as to get a better perspective on the discussion. I'd been mulling over the idea of introducing a new section on the BM talk page called "What NPOV means for this article" or some such. I'll probably do so when I get time and have thought about it bit more. But I'd be delighted if Ronz got in and wrote it first. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, SamuelTheGhost. For the first time in at least a week I'm feeling optimistic about this situation. Of course, it would also be helpful if Ronz were to replace the warning banner with informative, section-specific, issue-specific tags such as the ones I provided text for. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a problem with figuring out what NPOV means in application to any one article is that parts of the policy, especially UNDUE which gets brought up a lot here, could be more clear regarding different situations. The reason it is not, I have realized, is that clear policies are difficult to gain anything close to community consensus for. Nonetheless, I was thinking it might be a good idea to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (and maybe then an RfC) asking whether in the case of an article about a theory which is generally considered pseudoscience, does WP:Undue weight mean that the majority of the article should be specifically about criticisms, as Ronz has stated. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the discussion. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, you can mediate this one with your little pinky ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) This has been a shameless plug brought to you by Mediation Cabal.[reply]

Hi, SamuelTheGhost. Our policy is that biographical article titles reflect the best known name of the subject. Thus, we have an article on Edward Elgar, but not one on Edward William Elgar (except as a redirect page), because nobody except government record-keepers referred to him that way. And it's George W. Bush, not George Walker Bush. Conversely, we have an article on John Charles Thomas because he was known professionally and generally by all three names, not just as "John Thomas". Clutsam is known as "George Clutsam", never as "George Howard Clutsam". There's no issue of disambiguation with George Clutsam, but if there were, the better approach would be to have "George Clutsam (composer)" and "George Clutsam (astrologer/taxidermist/whatever)", because using the middle names would assume people knew that the one with the middle name Howard was a composer and the one with Murgatroyd was a taxidermist, which would not, I suggest, be a useful assumption to make. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all here in glorious detail. Enjoy. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on the discussion page re the location of Midian Rktect (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ghost- i invite you to join the discussion about an addition I made to Euclid. Check out my page first, which gives a summary, and then the talk page. NittyG (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see the discussion at the Patience talk page about your recent edit. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [7]

Please remove your edit as a sign of good faith. If you take a closer look, I was the one who qualified the earlier statements. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A straightforward reading of what you wrote clearly implied that you associated yourself with the COI accusation. And this edit confirms it. If you apologise to Junsun, I will apologise to you. And if not, not. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take it up at WP:WQA. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ronz, I have a sense of proportion, which is something you need. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your personal attack. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so, but I'm afraid I have no advice to offer at the moment. I removed your comment from the talk page because I thought it unnecessary and unhelpful since the edit warring had already ceased. Apologies. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to revert this to the pre-Rktect version [8], which means undoing a few edits of yours, but this seems to be the easiest way to clear it of the OR of this now blocked editor. What do you think? dougweller (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer on Gb's behalf: No, nothing about a medieval poet was actually at that place. It was about a living guy and started: "When younger, John Kay was a punk singer who also performed his poetry in pubs in the North....So the one you have in mind still needs to be written about...--Tikiwont (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:81.39.1.110. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was inappropriate, for multiple reasons. First off, the page is undeniably listed at a project page for discussion about whether it should be deleted or not, so it needs a tag indicating that. Removing the tag doesn't stop the listing. Second, you labeled the edit "rvv", which, in case you don't know, means a revert due to vandalism. The edit was not in any, way, shape or form vandalism. See the vandalism policy , and specifically what isn't considered vandalism if you are unclear on our rules. Labeling edits you do not like as vandalism is extremely uncivil.

I don't know how long you've been around Wikipedia, but just from the sheer number of posts on your talk page you obviously aren't a complete newbie. Maybe you've just never dealt with deletion votes or vandalism, I don't know. But, please, do not do that kind of thing again. DreamGuy (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues here SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Antonia Orfield link. I have placed it in the External Links, and I think it should probably remain there, because it is basically a primary source and would be difficult to discuss from a NPOV. It is quite possible that someone will find a reason to remove it, but we'll deal with that when it happens.

It appears that you are very much wanted at Talk:Bates method, to answer questions regarding the (now rather infamous) Woods report, though I think you've already answered them rather thoroughly. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide page numbers for the Pollack references regarding Margaret Corbett? The snippet view version seems to be gone from Google Books. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You didn't have to be quite so precise (i.e. just noting that it was pages 7-8 would have been sufficient), not that that's a problem. As you may have noticed I found a source discussing Mansfield's book. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently learned that anything published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 had its copyright expire after 28 years if it wasn't renewed. [9] This likely explains why Quackwatch can reproduce an entire chapter of Philip Pollack's 1956 book. [10] Now, if we had the entire book online, such as at a place like Scribd.com, its accessibility would no longer be a problem, and at least some of the Gardner references could be replaced. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, but surely a better place to put it, considering who we are, might be wikisource? More troublingly, I detect in what you say a hint for action on my part. Whether I attempt to take that hint depends on several factors: I'll need to review the potentialities of the hardware and software available to me, and, most importantly, my willingness to undertake hard work, which is slight. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually detest wikisource, for multiple reasons. First, it is difficult there to reproduce something in its original form, and secondly, anything hosted there can be changed by anyone at any time. Also, if the person submitting something couldn't prove for sure that it was public domain it would likely be deleted. Now, Google books has a snippet view version of Pollack's book, and I assume that technically, only a flip of the switch would be needed to make it Full view. I just contacted them (after trying a few days ago but somehow missing the contact form) asking if its copyright status could be checked and the book made fully available if indeed the copyright has expired. If I had been able to contact them when I first tried I wouldn't have hinted to you like this. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting what you say about wikisource. Of course its openness to alteration cuts both ways - I recently made a few corrections to a document there, but of course I could have been introducing errors. It does mean that any use of it as WP:RS is vulnerable, but the same is true of lots of on-line references. Google books will be perfect if you can get them to co-operate. Best of luck. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Google Books is going to do anything, however, I got the book listed here, which may or may not help it get online some other way. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to at least scan the book? By my understanding that would be considerably less work than digitizing, since scanning only creates an image and doesn't require that text be recognized (and someone else with more resources and time could presumably then digitize a scanned version, to make it searchable.) PSWG1920 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about I just send the book to you through the post, and you do whatever you want and send it back in due course? That would only cost me the postage, which I'd find very much less onerous than any alternative. We could still respect each other's anonymity in every other respect. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not really be comfortable with that arrangement, for multiple reasons. I wonder if there is some way to prove conclusively that it is out of copyright, since that seems to be what it would take for Google Books (which already has it digitized) to make it Full view. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there sir, you seem like a very nice fellow. Would you mind supporting my request for adminiship? Thank you very much. Wetman88 (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally removed this, but then figured it isn't actionable since I closed it, so yeah. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Here's more:

• http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/2573358?n=14643&s=4
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Ubr35UeE-UQC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=%22Richardson's+Show%22+%22John+Richardson+%22&source=bl&ots=egPeK32hlA&sig=UUAa0JdIldwxVmmCd0tcV-b38ZY&hl=en&ei=tcvXSZTbJ5PrlQfL5oXiDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I've put the above two sources into the article so that everyone can see them. The Cambridge Guide article by Martin Banham is similar in the two books he edited, but somewhat shorter in the paperback version. On the other hand that has the advantage of showing up in Google Books, so it's fair enough to cite both of them. The Harvard paper looks like it's a mine of further information which it will take me a little time to digest. Pardon the mixed metaphor, digesting a mine sounds uncomfortable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the link on the talk page for the link up to the discussion on Project Disambiguation talk.

But if you intend to ignore that, at least realize the page is far easier to rectify than line by line wading. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion found by the link referred to appears to be WP:CB. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you to the Seeyou case as an involved party, as per my talkpage. If you wish, feel free to make a statement, but bear in mind Seeyou hasn't commented yet and the case may be delayed to wait for it. Apologies for not adding you sooner. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to contribute to a new discussion on the talk page of the above about turning that article into a redirect as it appears to be a content fork? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. For the time being I prefer to hang back and see what other people say. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Google hits Nakba.JPG. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference could be related to how we have Google preferences configured. I have it returning 100 searches per page, safe searching off, all languages. I have no idea whether that would make a difference. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I type Nakba into Google UK, I get 1,960,000. Curiouser and curiouser. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have a few concerns about the prose, which you may find at Talk:The Botanic Garden/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "X-language surnames" is not commonly found in any literature about the subject of surnames. Why, then, did our encyclopedia move to this system? Please see Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames, as well as Category talk:Korean-language surnames for an answer to why so many of the new categories only have one or two names in them (while Category:Chinese-language surnames was swiftly repopulated by bot). Badagnani (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for the information. I'd seen much of this debate, but not those particular pages. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understand now that, contrary to your wish, "those who created this situation" are not ever inclined to be the ones to "put things right"; they simply insist on damaging a system, then leave others to clean up--even after being asked 20, 50, or 100 times to assist in the reconstruction of a categorization system they insisted on breaking. They simply move on to other things. If you are able to convince that editor to use his bot powers to repopulate those categories I will be very pleasantly surprised. Badagnani (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little note, X-language surnames could be very useful for making (or abdicating) decisions on sort-order. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You should be aware you have been named (although not "involved") at [11],by William Allen Simpson.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. It seems to have gone away for the moment, but I certainly want to speak up when it comes back. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no knowledge of this material at all, and don't really care about the category structure. I just happened to have noticed that among Harrison, Hanks, and a number of other books cited, only the 1969 version was locally available to me. In my mind, where the name was originally found and is still in use and what language it originally came are two different facets of a name (like, for example, Category:Films by topic and Category:Films by type) and should be covered separately, but I honestly don't care if we don't have categories. But, being where we are, if I'm reading your concern correctly

• For Malone [again, should be at Talk:Malone]: I'll rewrite it to Irish for Harrison, you can add the rest.
• For MacNicol [again, should be at Talk:MacNicol]: I'm guessing that Harrison's Celtic and "Gaelic" is in fact Scottish Gaelic, so that would make Harrison, HH, and Cottle with the same idea. If you agree, I can change that as well. That's a flaw of using any source without really understanding what's going on.
• Aaron, Aaron, Aarons and Aaronson [which should be copied in part to Talk:Aaron (surname)]: the name is a Jewish name (i.e. used by Jewish people) but only Harrison says the origin is from the original Hebrew. HH agrees on the Jewish part but sees a much more varied history, Reany has no real mention other than "medieval England" with it being used by Jewish people, and Cottle omits it. I think Category:Jewish surnames would thus be appropriate (HH can be cited for that), but you seem to be suggesting that it being from a Hebrew language is incorrect. Why not include Harrison claiming its Hebrew and whatever HH does? Are you saying everything Harrison did is wrong? That it's not a reliable source at all? If so, then all uses should be removed. If not, until we find some consensus as to its origins (which I doubt we'll find), WP:UNDUE would say to include both theories.

What language would the name come from otherwise? A google search isn't indicative to me; there is a source calling it Hebrew in origin and I suspect there will other examples as well. The fact that Harrison's definition of the United Kingdom is too expansive for our current usage means that whatever he calls an "United Kingdom" surname is inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to have an impact on his theories as to the names in the book. Yes, there are some Irish names in there that we today wouldn't include, but I'm not using it for "is this name a UK name or not"; I'm using this for "is this name from Hebrew, Celtic, Gaelic, whatever." As to not using a single source, I'll agree to that, but right now, 99% of the articles have ZERO sources, so I'll take have a 1912 source over nothing (again, unless you want to go to the "Aaron is possibly Egyptian" argument for some reason). I'm just concerned about wanting to move the articles from Category:Surnames down somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the MacNicol problem, ok, that's a bit more complicated. We have Scottish, Scottish Gaelic, and Harrison's German and Celtic theories. Category:Scottish Gaelic-language surnames would cover the Scottish, Scottish Gaelic and even Celtic (which is the larger category for Gaelic languages), but I think Harrison's German theory should be given equal weight to HH's and Cottle's. I'm leaving that as it right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

In your edit in Chemical Revolution you deleted a source due to a dead link - but you could have easily found the new link by just searching for "Chemical Revolution" on the university page. When you encounter a dead link, please try to fix it, or, failing that, tag it with "{{dead link}}". Maybe you can't connect to a site due to some error with your own connection, or the site is temporarily down. When another user encounters that tag, and the link is still dead, he'll know it wasn't a fluke.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not sure that I'm always willing to start searching for where things have gone, since it isn't usually easy, but I agree that putting "{{dead link}}" is a good idea and I'll try to make a habit of doing that. The funny thing was, my attention was focussed on the phrase "seven different gases", which I replaced with "several different gases", but only after spending some time on trying to find out who had put those words there in the first place. It turns out that he seems to have left WP. So I wasn't really being as lazy as you might suppose. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know I am bowing out of the discussion regarding this page out of frustration. I have unwatched the page. However, if you need support on some issue (since I agree with your viewpoint), ping me on my talk page and I will weight in. Personally, I do not think the article can be saved from academic jargon poison. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STG, thanks for restarting the discussion at the AR. I just wanted to let you know that I will be responding rather slowly there. My father just had open heart surgery and I am busy with that. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Awadewit (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion on the talk page about the primary topic and the order before editing Lincoln again. A consensus has been reached that Abraham Lincoln needs to be first, as it is a core biography and has 10-15x the hits of any other article with Lincoln in the title Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear STG,
Thanks v. much for the article on Watson Forbes. I was hoping someone might have a go at this and you have made a nice job of it. The Stratton and Aeolian articles were crying out for this link. With best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Now I need to go and practise my viola ... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of A. R. Whatmore, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://family-tree.co.uk/familyblogs/bessie/2008/01/20/arthur-reginald-whatmore-actor-dramatist-and-theatre-director. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I saw your note on Van Hoonacker, and well: the right way to write that last name is with a capital V (names like that in Flemish with a small v indicate that the family's nobility, which Van Hoonacker's family is not, I know some of the descendants and am - among others - working with Van Hoonacker's personal archives). So, if this answers your question: the capital V is the right way to go, I may have forgotten to change some of them, feel free to do so!

Prioriteit 22:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prioriteit (talk • contribs)

Thanks for redirecting this. I was unaware that there was a longer list elsewhere. Everything seems to be working fine now. Bobo. 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a while ago, but your response took my quote way out of context. You said the statement "Personally I don't like SPAs" is a gross violation of good faith, when clearly if you read the response fully, the statement refers to disliking SPA tags, not disliking SPAs. I certainly mispoke myself and edited my comment to reflect this. Thank you for correcting me.MATThematical (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on that understanding I'm very happy to apologise. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh 2000 year old Ethiopian spirit guide.Derek Acorah needs you to tell him info!! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But usually I don't tell him the truth. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just wondering whether I have offended you in some way. Four edits I have made recently were reverted by yourself. All of these were well cited. Either you have some issue with me (maybe I reverted an edit you did) or you don't like Hugh Allison, who was in some way mentioned in all the edits you reverted. If the issue is with myself, I'd like to offer you a peace pipe and ask what I have done so I can beg forgiveness. If I am making a simple mistake, please show me the way. Etc etc etc. --TimothyJacobson (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your response. Have also replied to that on my talk page--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks again for your responses. Have again replied--TimothyJacobson (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not think of anything more like and OOPA than the Ica stones! Why the revertion? --Againme (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Ica stones#OOPA again. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. You seen like a smart guy. :) --Againme (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi Geo Swan (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied on article talk page. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over on Talk:Sharif al-Din you wrote something that I think was incorrect. I am drawing your attention to my reply. Possibly you actually agree with me, and I misunderstood you, or you misspoke.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was surprised to find that the merge of these two pages was done by someone who is clearly an experienced Wikipedian. In my opinion, there are two important issues with this merge:

1. No note of the merge was made in the edit summary; this is required to comply with the licensing conditions. (Help:Merging)
2. The merged page does not have the correct content or style for a disambiguation page; indeed this is why I performed a split in the first place, in order to separate the two types of content with distinct and separate purposes. (WP:DAB and MOS:DAB)

I hope you will take these into account in the future. Many thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note on further investigation that this issue appears to be more complex than I first realised - you appear to have undertaken a rationalisation of some Muslim given name pages - a task that certainly needed doing. Nevertheless, my concerns remain - there need to be separate given name and disambiguation pages, per consensus as described in WP:DAB, MOS:DAB and some anthroponymy-related policies and guidelines linked from these pages. Also, attribution certainly needs fixing for some of your edits. Rather than unpicking your edits, which appear to have been done with care and no doubt took some time to complete, perhaps a better resolution would be to fix attribution per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution and then re-split the pages into separate given name and disambiguation pages (this type of splitting is a relatively simple process). I look forward to your opinions on this matter. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your first point is easily dealt with. Attribution is required when a merge has been carried out by cutting and pasting. I have not been using any cutting and pasting from existing disambiguation or name pages (except my own text for the meaning of "Abdul"). I created this new page entirely from scratch, and there are a host of differences from the old one, as will be clear if you compare the contents.
2. As to what is appropriate for the content and structure of the pages concerned, we need to consider two points:
   1. The name we are talking about in this case is probably represented in the bearer's native language as عبدالحلیم or अब्दुल हलीम or even Абдуль Халим. There are numerous ways of transliterating that into the Latin alphabet, and although sometimes a particular person's name will have a tranliteration which has become standard, in many other cases this is not so. For disambiguation purposes, therefore, it is best if all feasible representations are in the same place.
   2. Nobody, or virtually nobody, is in fact just called "Abdul Halim". Typically someone of this name has several additional names, either in a form described in Arabic name or Indian name, or with a surname of some sort. Wikipedia article titles are meant to use the commonest form, but often this is not universally used, and someone might easily be searching with a different form. To separate out a page with people apparently (but not really) just called Abdul Halim from a longer list called Abdul Halim (name), which is the way things were before, is not in fact user-friendly. I notice that you've done something similar with Abdur Rahim (disambiguation). I think that in doing so you are just creating confusion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you say you created the pages from scratch; there are indeed differences and I do not dispute you have put considerable work of your own into them, but there do seem to be remaining similarities that suggest some carry-over of content. However the creative content of these pages is limited and thus any possible harm minimal, so I will simply take your word that these pages are indeed your own creatons and let the matter rest.

I readily accept that there are various transliterations of these names, and it is sensible to combine the transliterations into a single page. That is not at all controversial, indeed as I mentioned above, it definitely needed doing.

Name pages and disambiguation pages do serve distinct functions and need to be kept distinct, per WP:Disambiguation. A name page discusses the origins, meaning, distribution and use of a name, and may also contain lists of notable people possessing the name, and other name related information. This is what your pages do, and they are indeed name pages. Disambiguation pages serve a quite different function; they serve to guide people to the correct topic where more than one topic exists that might reasonably be called by that title. This might or might not be a full Arabic or Indian name, and for a disambiguation page, that isn't important; disambiguation pages are concerned simply with guiding people to the correct concept associated with a particular string of characters or set of variant spellings; the words' origins, meanings or relationships to other concepts are irrelevant in this context. What is important is that "in a sufficiently general context", the subject might be referred to by that title. All this has been agreed by consensus between Wikipedia editors and recorded as the disambiguation guidelines in WP:Disambiguation and MOS:DAB. I do not see any reason to ignore this consensus here. Your pages do not disambiguate well, because they contain other text and refer to subjects in the lists that are not ambiguous with the page title, according to the criteria set out in the disambiguation guidelines. Separate disambiguation pages according to these guidelines are required. My attempts at creating these pages may not have been the best scheme; I'm happy to discuss how best to organise the disambiguation pages, but such pages are required in this case. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful that you prompted me to re-read WP:Disambiguation. I looked there for guidance on the treatment of names and found it in the second paragraph, with the example Rice (disambiguation) which immediately led on to Rice (surname). This latter is a name page which also functions as a disambiguation page; the origin of the name is given there, together with a fairly comprehensive list of people who have it. There is no separate disambiguation page for people with the surname Rice. This is precisely the same set of purposes that I had in creating Abdul Halim, so it is comforting to discover that what I did fully accords with WP policy, as well as with user-friendliness and common sense. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to resurrect this issue after a very long while, however, the example of rice perfectly illustrates my point; the current Abdul Halim is a name page, analagous to Rice (surname). As such it is a perfectly good page. However, in creating it you have removed the necessary and separate page which disambiguates between uses of the term "Abdul Halim", analagous to Rice (disambiguation): Abdul Halim (disambiguation) is currently a redirect to Abdul Halim, which is not a disambiguation page as it does not follow the disambiguation guidelines I referred to above. Also, by placing the name page at Abdul Halim, you give it the status of primary topic. It is more likely that one of the other uses should be there, or it should be the disambiguation page. I suggest you correct your edits to be in line with current guidelines by moving the current Abdul Halim to Abdul Halim (name) and creating a new disambiguation page at Abdul Halim, following the guidelines at WP:D and MOS:D. You will need to do this for any other names you treated in this way. Thank you. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the categories to make clear that it's a name page. It also serves a disambiguation purpose, as many name pages do. The name can perfectly well be its own primary topic; that helps to prevent the arbitrary grabbing of common Arabic names as primary topic names for articles about fairly obscure people, as has often happened. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I take it you are declining to restore the disambiguation pages you removed when you made your original edits to Abdul Halim and other similar Arabic name pages?

Please review WP:Primary topic to see the criteria for a primary topic. Your assertions about the Abdul Halim name do not even come close. A quick review of the popularity of all the "Abdul Halim" pages reveals the following page views for each in October:

• Abdul Halim 445
• Abdul Halim (Indonesia) 257
• Abdul Halim of Kedah 1446

I.e. the article Abdul Halim of Kedah, which has a good claim to the article title "Abdul Halim", has over 3 times as many page views as the name page (I have not yet investigated possible alternate transliterations). These statistics indicate there is no primary topic and the (currently missing) disambiguation page should go at Abdul Halim.

--MegaSloth (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a serious issue here. Let's discuss it in the context of Abdur Rahim. There you created the page Abdur Rahim (disambiguation), which lists just five dab entries, selected apparently on the basis of the way the name appears in the wikipedia article. As you know nobody is really called just Abdur Rahim without further names, and there are about 50 articles on the subject of people one of whose names is Abdur Rahim, with transliterations often widely varying for the same person. Someone looking for someone of that name who found their way to that dab page, and not finding the man or woman they were looking for there, would probably conclude that the article they wanted didn't exist. This is not user-friendly, and destroys the whole point of having a dab page.

In deciding how to structure these things, we need to be guided by the following:

1. Wikipedia principles. In this context this means obeying
   1. WP:RS, which I've been doing and can add further references where necessary
   2. WP:NPOV, which governs the tone of the descriptions and also, I think prevents us from arbtrarily selecting some entries as more important than others, except where the situation is very clear. This leads to a presumption against having a primary topic, except in a very few cases.
2. user-friendliness, which implies that any user can easily find their way to any sought article in a straightforward way, and will be led to believe that an article doesn't exist only when it really doesn't
3. avoidance of duplication, since it's twice as difficult to keep duplicated information up to date
4. following guidelines such as WP:MOSDAB. These are largely good advice, but they are advice, not mandatory. I put them this late because if the other criteria conflict with one of them, it would show that the guideline needs changing, and we're allowed to propose that. The possibility of name pages which are also dab pages is never explicitly considered in the guidelines as far as I've seen, but there are many cases where it's appropriate, so the right thing to do is to draft rules which will govern that case.
5. allocating the right category. The category system is a mess, but luckily it doesn't matter.

If you want to experiment I suggest you use Abdur Rahim, since you've already started. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moving on to a wider basis, assuming that I am correct in understanding you are implying that the current guidelines are inappropriate, since Abdul Rahim is one of many possible transliterations of the same Arabic name. I disagree; the simplest solution – as discussed in the guidelines – is to redirect all transliterations existing as titles on Wikipedia to a single disambiguation page. Since the terms of the discussion are widening, I don't think discussing this on a user's talk page is appropriate any longer, as wider participation will be required. I suggest we both direct any further discussions to an appropriate talk page to allow for this.

Since you suggest using Abdur Rahim, I am happy to begin to restore this set of pages to compliance with the guidelines, and we can discuss any issues there. I do not accept your characterisation of these corrections as an "experiment", a description that might better apply to your decision to depart from the guidelines. I acknowledge that guidelines are not mandatory, but they are effectively a codification of consensus and are not to be disregarded lightly.

--MegaSloth (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of this subject-matter appears at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#use of references. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]