User talk:Pmanderson

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• Archive 8
• Archive 9

---

This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.

Yours,

Rich Dengrove User:RDengrove

Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES [1]. Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.

If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." [2] Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:HARASSMENT. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you to back off and concentrate on doing something a little more constructive in this new year, such as some actual editing or maybe even creating new articles. To avoid any accusations of favouritism, I am simultaneously making the same request to those who have been your opponents in recent arguments. I don't want to see good/potentially good contributors slipping into this cycle (forgive the pun) of mutual recrimination and the constant arguments are becoming more than a little irritating. Deb (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you took the short break but hope that you can stay away from B2C from now on - otherwise you may end up getting a kicking and that's not the outcome I would prefer. Deb (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the wave dash from that section on WP:MOS-JA for two reasons:

1. Its usage is currently under discussion on the talk page, and there is a consensus that perhaps it should be brought up for a greater discussion and
2. There is no reason to explain why a particular character should not be used twice on the same page. It is already covered in WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media.

Please do not revert, again, and instead initiate discussion on the talk page like a normal editor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for announcing your revert war. Unless you are doing so again, please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't start them yourself. I have added content concerning the wave dash back to that section, but it is not necessary to have it prohibited twice on the same page, particularly if there is a consensus that it should not be prohibited. Perhaps there would not be a revert war if editors such as yourself and Jpatokal did not find themselves to be the police of WP:AT and the other manuals of style.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR USERS Pmanderson AND Born2cycle

Okay, this really is my last attempt to avoid one or both of you getting blocked. Please please please will you consider the following course of action?

1. Voluntarily stay away from the following pages for a period of one month:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names - it's time for someone else to make the decision to close this down
• one another's talk pages
• the talk pages of articles that you have previously had disagreements over

2. Stop feeling that you need to have the last word - that isn't any kind of victory

If you could both find the self-discipline to follow this suggestion (which I realise I have no right to make), I feel sure you would not regret it in the long run. Deb (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you clear this doubt for me please? Was the title of Baron Cromwell, said of Oakham, of Gregory Cromwell a new title or the old title of Baron Cromwell, said of Wimbledon, with its attainder lifted? Konakonian (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC) cracroftspeerage.co.uk says it is the same title, but thepeerage.com says otherwise. Konakonian (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, then. So, there was never a case where the attainder was lifted only for the smaller titles? Or is it just in case of restoration of a forfeiture? Konakonian (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably aware that Hadamard (disambiguation) has been significantly changed by me recently at the request of Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on my talk page.[3] I replied to her request there [4], mentioning that I had previously added quite a lot of content related to Hadamard to wikipedia, including a stub Hadamard's method of descent, needed for another article on spherical functions. Her request resulted in the correction and expansion of parametrix (together with the redirect Hadamard parametrix construction) and the doubling and restructuring of the disambiguation page. I had not finished adding content. You made two small grammatical corrections which were mathematically not quite accurate and I made the statements more precise. You reverted my changes, claiming hounding. But that showed no recognition of the fact that I had in fact been making major changes to that page and articles linking to it. This morning I restored my changes and, having in the meantime created Hadamard three-lines theorem, then added it in the relevant section (complex analysis and convexity). You removed that new link in your edits, with an edit summary WP:HOUNDING. But my last edit summary clearly had "+ 3 lines".[5] You apparently did not check to see what that meant, and so removed the link to the new article I had just created. I wonder if you could please try to act more reasonably? You have followed me to a disambiguation article which I was requested to improve by an administrator, despite being very busy in real life (hence the wikibreak from articles). Please could you stop removing links to new wikipedia articles from the disambiguation page? I have no idea why you have been doing so. Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... [6] that's not "ethnic pointmaking" but a straight forward application of the Danzig/Gdansk vote: For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig), hence it should be "Waldenburg (Wałbrzych)" etc.  Volunteer Marek  19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep accusing me of having some idiosyncratic interpretation of the vote. How else would you "interpret" For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland??? Clearly the place shares a history between Germany and Poland. How else would you "interpret" the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. The first reference to Waldenburg appears and hence it "should also include a reference to other names" - Walbrzych. There's not much room for interpretation here, it's all pretty straightforward. Your accusation is completely specious and perhaps bad faithed. Volunteer Marek  22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to address the argument that without specific naming conventions article titling would be chaotic and unpredictable, I've attempted to describe the process of determining a title that clearly shows that usually specific naming conventions are not needed. I'm asking a few select individuals to look at it before I open it for general review at WT:TITLE.

If you could take a few minutes to review it and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it. Do you think we could incorporate this or something like it into WP:TITLE? Thanks. Here is the link: User:Born2cycle/how2title. Please leave your comments on the talk page of that subpage, User talk:Born2cycle/how2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. There is one place I could offer my services as a mediator on this subject - WT:POLAND, which per previous amendment is the one and only forum where I can discuss all issues. If you'd explain the situation there, I and perhaps others could try to offer our input there. PS. Your page could use archiving. Perhaps you could use automatic archiving, like on my page? It is quite simple, and I could even set it up for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but it could be that I just don't use them. Try asking about it at WP:VPT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning, clean slate.

• I made my edit with the understanding that the Gdanzig vote was still in force.
• I have never seen anything anywhere that would indicate that the Gdanzig vote is no longer valid. It has been quoted at me, it has been invoked recently by others, all the templates pertaining to it are still up on all the relevant articles' talk pages. So even if it is no longer applicable, please excuse me for thinking otherwise. My edit was made entirely in good faith (I admit to getting somewhat pissed off when you came in obviously assuming otherwise)
• I have been editing Wikipedia for more than six years. During that time, I've observed that the Gdanzig vote, however "lame" it may be, is one of the few rare examples of a Wikipedia policy decision that has actually worked.
• It has worked in the sense that it clears up practice and prevents multiple edit wars. For better or worse (better, actually), editors, even die hard POV warriors seem to respect it (maybe because it is sort of famous, even outside Wikipedia).
• Without the Gdanzig vote, pretty much every single article on Polish-German places, where naming is in doubt is a potential edit war magnet. This in fact is the situation that led to the vote.
• There are actually almost (except for an occasional flare up, usually involving new editors) NO edit wars or disputes on German-Polish articles where geographic naming is concerned. And this is mostly due to the existence of the Gdanzig vote (same thing is not true about articles on persons - but that's because the vote is unclear in that regard). You get rid of the Gdanzig vote, you're opening up a Pandora's box.
• On the other hand Ukrainian/Russian naming conventions or Polish/Lithuanian ones or Romanian/Hungarian ones or whatever, are still a source of perennial disputes - this suggests that the problem in these areas is actually a LACK of a specific hard guideline. The problem is not with the Gdanzig vote, but with the fact that similar policies haven't been developed for other dispute prone areas.
• It does not degrade the quality of the article in anyway - in fact it improves it - to provide additional information about the present day name of the places.

The reason I'm quite irked by this is that I was actually at the article because I noticed that there is no Wikipedia articles on the Hochbergs - a certifiably German family (though one of the more recent members volunteered for the Polish army in WWII) (and if it counts for anything, had I been around when the RM for the article was ongoing I would've voted for "Duchy of Pless" since that appears to be the name used in English sources), and a very interesting one at that. They deserve to have an article on them and I happen to have some materials (including images, like for example the image of a statue of Daisy (which I uploaded [7], but also some sources) on them and I was thinking about creating a series of relevant articles and writing it up. Now I'm not so sure I should even bother.

So how about just letting the dispute go, restoring the names per Gdanzig vote, and then we can discuss the present relevancy of the vote to naming conventions - I also happen to think that it should be updated in some respects but that's a big issue that hasn't been addressed before and it lies outside the scope of this particular provincial disagreement. Cheers. Volunteer Marek  08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article General average/New version is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General average/New version until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• She was née Plantagenet because her brother and father and other relatives used that surname. If not, then someone should correct those articles too.
• According to the list and succession of the creations of the title of Earl of Salisbury, she's the 8th Countess. I've never heard of any doubt, specially since it's such a clear and high title. If the title came through female line, from Montagu to Neville, as it did, then he was its heir. Also, in every publications such as Les Dynasties d' Europe or Alison Weir's, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 137, and Charles Mosley, editor's, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 106th edition, 2 volumes (Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 1999), volume 1, page 16 mention her brother as Earl of Warwick, a title that also fell into female lines.
• She was also 10th and 7th Baroness Montacute, two peerages that have no connection to the one of Baron Montagu of her son. On Baron Montacute, you can see how she became, after her brother, the heiress of both titles.

Konakonian (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now: it was like the new Dukedoms of Lancaster and Norfolk. All the titles of these houses were inherited, except the Dukedoms, that had to be recreated. User:Agricolae has been untiring in removing the "surname" Platagenet from other articles, but he stated that it had become a surname only later, and later means York. Apparently, it was never a surname per se, only a nickname.

The title of Earl of Warwick should've been inherited, as the title of Earl of Salisbury, by the issue of the Kingmaker, but if they were forfeit and never restored, regranted instead despite in the heirs of the forfeited ones, then it explains it all.

It's true that eve the Royal Succession followed a Semi-Salic Law, and for that reason so would the titles. But there were cases in which they followed female line succession: the Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury did, and even the claim to the Royal succession through the Duke of Clarence was valid by primogeniture and mere male preference, and Henry VII was the heir of the Lancasters not by virtue of semi-salic succession but my male preference only; see also Baron Clinton and Baron Compton, Baron Cobham and other contemporary baronies: the first two titles went through female line, dispossessing the actual families of those names, the ones of the Earls of Northampton and the Earls of Lincoln, through male preference, and the second ones fell into female line, either through semi-salic or male preference succession.

Konakonian (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Henry IV was the heir by taking the power from Richard II rather than being the closest male heir in male line. And the same went with Edward IV, already in dispute with Henry VI despite the existance of other legitimized Lancaster males, already dead at the time Henry VI died. And, more obviously, Henry VII.

In conclusion: despite the Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury having been granted to the son-in-law of the last holder, they become new creations because they were not succeeded nor abeyant by his daughters; the two Baronies Montacute became abeyant, never used again, but with the attainder that was put upon the Poles and later lifted, the titles were out of claim, and then back again, as they remain today.

The doubt, or certainty: was Margaret Countess of Salisbury as a "new new" title or the successor of her father? Since his father house was forfeit and her brother (who might have been Earl of Warwick just by courtesy, as it became use then) did not use the title of Earl of Salisbury and this title could not fall into abeyance nor be succeeded by a woman, then we conclude that it was a new title, like the 1st Marchioness of Pembroke.

Konakonian (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You once were involved into an article naming discussion of Chihuahua State. There is now a new move request you might be interested in: Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) TopoChecker (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they were never Plantagenet, then you should correct and move the articles on George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and his issue. If he and his son were surnamed Plantagenet, then you should readd it to Margaret Pole. Apparently, according to your edits on article Earl of Salisbury, he was the first of his third creation. Since the titles were forfeit, then his daughter was the first of her creation. What was her surname, though? "of Clarence", like the "of Lancaster" and the "of York"? Konakonian (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a unilateral move of a controversial title. The thread is PMAnderson_-_another_controversial.2Fdisruptive_page_move:_Juan_Carlos_I.The discussion is about the topic Juan Carlos I of Spain. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so, as you claimed, then perhaps you should clear this out: George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and other York relatives appear with the surname Plantagenet. Were they after all the only ones who used it? Also, his daughter Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury's article had (née Plantagenet) added by me and it was removed by you. Were they all Plantagenet or no one was? If the father and brother were, then so was she. If she wasn't, then neither were they. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask a question about the NOR policy, but had difficulty getting your talk page to load, so I've archived nearly 600 kilobytes (2008–2010). I placed it all in Archive 9, so you can divide it up as you choose—or ask for the archive to be deleted. You're under no obligation to keep cut-and-paste archives, but as you'd started, I assumed you'd want to continue. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several AN or AN/I threads about you recently, Pma, regarding disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt the policies and guidelines, I'm going to consider adding to those threads, or opening a user RfC. Please stop reverting, stop adding tags, and discuss issues on the talk pages when people object to your changes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another effort by a POV-pushing editor to amke a content dispute into a conduct dispute; the mark of terminal bad faith. In fact, I have not reverted; I have consistently offered novel text, when supported on the substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[copied from SV talk] Except of course for those notifications you are required to make. Your factfree endeavour to make a content dispute into a conduct dispute - while conducting a revert-war - is evidence of terminal bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted your response here to keep the discussion in one place in case we need to refer back to it, as an attempt to resolve the dispute. You've been reverting at that page since January 20, including reverting the tags you add. Please make yourself familiar with WP:3RR, which makes clear that reverting can involve different text each time.

The bottom line is that it's not for you to decide that long-standing policy is disputed. It's a widely accepted policy, and the need to rely on secondary sources is also widely accepted. Please start a wiki-wide RfC if you want to change it. But above all I'm asking that you stop the general disruption around the project, as discussed many times recently on various pages. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what specific incident you two are talking about, but I have to say the tone is all too familiar. To describe the root problem as succinctly as I could, it is that PMA sees himself all too often as The Decider. I suggest most everyone would agree that PMA should follow this advice: If there is any kind of conflict (or even potential conflict), continue with discussion on the relevant talk page, but do not take action with respect to editing the guideline, the article, or moving anything. Not paying heed to the meaning of these highlighted words is what turns PMA's content disputes into conduct disputes, every time. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[copied from SV talk] Please stay off my talk page. Your recent post is a claim of ownership; more editors at the moment have disagreed with the poor phrasing you defend than have agreed with it - and nobody has defended the policy it would (taken literally) support. This is a dispute; and removing the tag which indicates it will be suppressio veri - as well as persistent revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you've asked me not to post here again, this will be my last post about this. Please open a RfC if you want to change a core content policy in a way that others regard as substantive. Don't revert when there are objections, don't tag, don't insult people, just keep on discussing and asking for fresh eyes. But my point is not about that page alone. My point is that this is your modus operandi on all pages—articles, policies, and guidelines—and it seems to be causing increasing problems.

Please see the recent threads about it on AN/I: January 2011; December 2010; December 2010 again; December 2001 for a third time; September 2010; September 2010 again; September 2010 for a third time; July 2010; July 2010 again. That's just a quick glance, so I may have missed some, and it doesn't include multiple 3RR reports.

I'm asking you please to reconsider your approach, and above all not to export it to the core content policies, which a lot of people rely on, and which therefore have to be stable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a disruptive editing warning, but you know what? You're one of the first sane people to show up in that hellpit of absurdity in quite a while, and with cogent points; maybe it's because you make cogent points you get people accusing you of being "disruptive", just as I have been derided for allegedly "bogus claims" - things that are not claims, but are facts based in sources. Wikipedia is increasingly populated by asinine fools, my patience is wearing out....I may just put myself on ANI to explain my anger tonight; no doubt there'll be a formal complaint, but my response is I'm t he one who has a grievance - against fools, obstructionists, and downright contrarian assholes intent on defending the indefensible by any means necessary. I'm choked at what else my wiki-energy could be spent on than picking up broken things and trying to find enough people to help me get them fixed; instead i find people who insist that they're not broken and don't need fixing, and I'm in the wrong for saying they are....what a waste of fucking time; have a look at the Ckatz item on the bottom of my talkpage, where I talk about all the topics/issues that I keep on my watchlist and watch over (not "OWN", but guard from spin trolls etc) and the things I could be contributing to Wikipedia. Instead of having to get proper spelling re-introduced because it was changed by some stupid fool who doesn't know about the subjects affected, nor cares...they only care about their precious vision of typography...all style, not substance....I'd rather be working on content than trying to get format fixed all the time...and extremely aggravated that my local variety of English is being told its' wrong by people on another continent, "deciding what's best for teh colonies", apparently.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I rarely drink, but very occasionally a malt whiskey without ice or water is called for. Tony (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See main2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After another editor accused you of baing a mathematician, I checked out your userpage on MOS. Is a quarter of a fourth eight[8]? PPdd (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the phrase "stable version" in the edit summary of a page I watch. When I looked up Wikipedia:Stable versions to see what this meant, the tag at the top left me with only confusion. I've sworn off discussion on MOS, guideline, or policy pages because I have no hope of keeping a civil tongue with children who are neither children nor civil (or rather, they confuse communicating in a robotic manner with civility, which surely has a human component). Could you perhaps spare a moment to tell me where I might find out what is meant by "stable version"? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the spelling Latymer to Latimer in the titles of John Nevill, 3rd Baron Latimer and John Nevill, 4th Baron Latimer. This is incorrect: Baron Latymer is conventionally spelled with a y, to distinguish it from the separate, older Baron Latimer (although the titles are held by different branches of the same family). BartBassist (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pmanderson. On some pages that I have edited regularly I see you reverting. I have not seen you using talk page to explain your concern. Would you let me know why you did:

• this 1 or this 1.1. Please see "why I think the revert was incorrect".
• this one. Please see this. Also you write "restore sourced (and well-known) assertions". Did you read the source? Nothing that I removed are sourced and the sentence that is sourced is "manipulated". Look at this: the original words of the source is "Even though there are later traditions which place him in Azerbaijan and Media, it is more reasonable to locate Zoroaster somewhere in eastern Iran along with the rest of the Avesta. Further, the two Avestan dialects belong linguistically to eastern Iran." Now look what the user has added "Even though there are later traditions which place him in Azerbaijan and Media, it is more reasonable to locate Zoroaster somewhere in eastern [ancient] Iran [today's Afghanistan] along with the rest of the Avesta. Further, the two Avestan dialects belong linguistically to eastern [ancient] Iran [today's Afghanistan]." Don't you think your revert was unjustified? Also did you see the source? Did you see this #Raŋhā = Rasā in Vedic geography, at times mentioned together with Kubhā (Kabul) and Krumu (Kurram), a river situated in a mountainous area, probably connected with the Indus, not with the Jaxartes or with the Volga". This is really OR ONLY. Not in the source, not sourced...
• and this one ...

I guess your reverts are unjustified and you should at least use the talk page to explain why you did all these sudden reverts on pages you have not previously edited (I hope I am not mistaken or otherwise sorry for that). In any case if you are going to engage in editing please let us use talk pages more often. Cheers. Xashaiar (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if there is an article that has, consistently, what you call consolidated individual notes, you come along and correct some punctuation in the article, then another editor adds a requested citation, identical to the two surrounding ones but not "consolidated", you have now imperiously forbidden me to fix that? Come on.  --Lambiam 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still into WP:UE there are some issues on these talk pages: [9] and [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.183.207 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pmanderson_reported_by_User:Kwamikagami_.28Result:_.29. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope you are well. Your name has just cropped up at ANI. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever run into each other on WP, that I can remember. I'm not sure if I've done anything to annoy you. I'm confused why you decided to suddenly (and in a rather brusque manner) oppose all of the bot requests that I have open at the moment. Is there a problem of which I am unaware, or is this your normal behavior? —SW— ^confess 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are demanding a bot which will act against clear policy;however, it is required that bots perform only non-controversial edits. You (as required) started a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_to_reduce_duplicate_references; when several people objected to your proposal, you responded None of these are valid reasons, in my opinion, and I believe I have refuted them all.

That's your opinion, on which you have no consensus. It's not the opinion of the people who disagree with you, none of who have retracted, and some of whom have actively continued to object. You should not be running a bot to do controversial things - and the use of bots to enforce stylistic preferences should be re-examined severely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there are two people who have opposed, and one of them is you. And, I have refuted all of the opposition points. I have shown them to be logically invalid. Whether or not that causes the opposer to retract is immaterial. Also, the fact that this particular case is "controversial" is just your opinion, and it has only become controversial because of your disruptive influence on it. How can it be disruptive if Help:Footnotes#Multiple_citations_of_the_same_reference_or_footnote instructs us to do exactly what the bot would be doing, and it doesn't mention that it is optional or open to stylistic interpretation. —SW— ^express 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear, this is two deliberate falsehoods.

• CBM, myself, and Gimmetoo have all opposed the proposal. It is difficult to believe that anybody could read the transcript without noticing both of them, who have been much more voluminous than myself. Uzma Gamal has made definite proposals for restriction, and has also been dismissed.
• As Snottywang has just finished admitting, the footnote style he prefers is neither recommended nor required; the link he quotes is instructions on how to do it, if you want to. (There are certainly articles on which it is desirable to do it; there are also articles on which it isn't.) He regards the giant step from this permission to imposing it everywhere as a mere "bureaucratic obstacle".

Please keep this editor off my talkpage while I am unable to do anything about it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know the drill by now, so I'm not going to give you the spiel. I fully expect you to appeal it, so I only ask that any admin reviewing this please see my rationale here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this block. Having just interacted for the first time with Pmanderson a few days ago (with unsatisfactory results), and having just taken a look at his block log, it's clear that corrections to his behavior are required before he will become a productive editor. I would also second Heimstern's request that an admin considering an early unblock take a comprehensive look at the 3RR situation as well as Pmanderson's recent contributions. —SW— ^confess 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PMA has generally been a productive user since early 2005, but for whatever reason has become increasingly crabby and belligerent about what are, to most readers, minor stylistic issues, fighting a somewhat Quixotic war against the imminent stylistic demise of Wikipedia. I think it might be better if he just stayed away from MOS issues for a while.  --Lambiam 08:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is his 23rd block since 2006. Something tells me his attitude hasn't just changed recently. —SW— ^prattle 13:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristic carelessness. This counts my unblocks; that they are on the same list does not make them the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason Heimstern gives below, I have stayed off this talk page. However, PMAnderson is correct in stating that the number of blocks has been misstated. I count 14 prior to the current block, not 23; the remainder are indeed unblocks, mostly because he promised to stop edit warring. One of the unblocks was made with the summary "pages not clearly listed as style guidelines", suggesting that the unblocking admin considered that block to be unjustified. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, because I have promised not to engage in some particular dispute; I am willing to disengage from anything at the request of an uninvolved admin at any time - a technique that should be tried more often. I have (elsewhere on this page) offered not to add a hyphen to the article Mexican-American War for a week, if an admin thinks that helpful. (I am surprised that so many as five blocks were not reversed; I think at least one of them expired before I learned about it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]