User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 15

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello POV-pushing.

Please do not revert my edit, as "POV-Pushing" that was not my intention and you must have misunderstood. Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists is not a POV category, it is the same as categories like Category:Armenian Genocide deniers. The administrator there said it was OK to use this political labeling, and so the category Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists is perfectly within the rules. If you believe I am wrong, please create a CfD on both Category:Armenian Genocide deniers category and Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists category. You should also include Category:Nazi propagandists and Category:Soviet propagandists. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_

As to your message... You cannot play one-sided in this issue, and pick what political categories for people is allowed and isn't and then threaten to block me, when Andranikpasha is allowed to make categories like this. This is just unfair and undemocratic. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout the link errors, fixed now. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask, why are you favoring Armenian edits that discredit or try to discredit Western or Turkish historians who don't support the Armenian Genocide claim, but find it unfavorable when I do the same. I'm not trying to "push" anything, I simply do not understand this unfairness. Why are Armenians able to put "criticism of work" type things on American historians they don't like, or "denier" labeling, but I'm not allowed to add "propagandist" labeling... If I'm wrong, please express that but it's silly to just pick one side all the time, it just isn't fair. And I'm sure as an honest man, you will understand. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't a historical fact... Have you read any books on the issue? Just because Armenians made a page called Armenian Genocide doesn't automatically make it a fact. Furthermore, a fact is something tangible or verifiable, like saying "An Armenian was killed by a Turk", but you cannot say that "The Armenian was killed in the Armenian Holocaust" because that's not a fact, it is a point of view. There needs to be proof of intent for a genocide to hold true, and the United Nations has not declared the events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide, hence it isn't a fact, just a historical interpretation supported by the majority of Wikipedians, that's it. There needs to be solid proof that the CUP government of 1915 was ordering massacres or killings. If you want I can give you quotations from Talat Pasha himself sending out telegram orders to stop massacres of Armenians, or orders exempting Armenians from deportation from certain areas. So how is it a fact, please explain this to me so that I can understand. I didn't push a POV like "The Armenians are responsible for an Azeri Genocide" this would be POV, or "The Armenians are responsible for a Turkish Genocide" this would be POV, I'm holding a NPOV argument that you cannot declare a historical interpretation as a fact. I am not saying anything like "Armenians did not suffer" or "Armenians did not die", these would be examples of POV, and it is WRONG. I am simply saying that certain people that I put in that category push an Armenian Genocide POV usually with bad intentions with disregard for the Armenian sufferings. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand friend, what is with the hostility? I am simply making an argument, and you are simply claiming I have a denialist agenda, I did not deny anything. Why are you trying to have me blocked, please explain this to me in a nice way, without threats/warnings. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fork articles

Wikipedia is being flooded with POV fork articles. I think a new policy is needed in this issue. Discussion is going on in this issue regarding Islam and anti-Christian persecution and Historical persecution by Christians.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see this

[1]what is going on?Megistias (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of new articles

You should be placing those new articles in the "Definitions" page, which has a numbering system. Badagnani (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's important to keep the sources together, numbered. However that's done. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspected throwaway account

The monomania of this editor seems indicative of a single-purpose, throwaway account. What do you think? JFD (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for participating in My RfA

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

ASIMO I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2RR

I've replied on dab's talk page, if you're interested. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil, but to be honest, I don't really care at all if he's experienced or not. In fact, his experience would be a reason to block; seasoned editors like himself are not exempt from the rules everyone else follows, and should know better. I respect dab, and he's a very valuable contributor; however, edit warring, no matter the reason, is unacceptable. If my viewpoint is clueless then I'll retire from Wikipedia. Also, I don't see why he gains any special rights; if he's edit warring, he's edit warring. Unless I'm not allowed to call an edit war when I see one anymore, I don't see why I'd have to seek consensus at ANI prior to blocking. Anyway, the entire point of this whole exercise was to try to get them to develop consensus without having to page protect/block anyone. I'm sorry if this has offended you. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolvedness

Erm, have you actually read the list of names participating in that AE thread? I have some trouble seeing you as an "uninvolved" admin on that particular discussion. --Elonka 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for weighing in. I think you are completely wrong, and am going to absolutely insist that - since you've decided to reward his bad behavior - you make yourself available to deal with any subsequent uncivil behavior and comments in the article. Since the diffs you pointed out were a concerted effort to not goad DreamGuy (as well as attempt to retain a user who was at the point fo leaving the project due to DG's behavior), I am going to come to you when he refuses to listen to anyone, using your closing of the complaint as validation for his behavior. If it sounds like I am disappointed in your judgment, its because I am. The argument was clear - a person under behavioral restriction is under a stiffer yardstick for compliance than someone who is not, and your Diffs did not point to any incivility on the part of others. In point of fact, no AN/I complaint has ever been filed on anyone else in the discussion. Please feel free to check on that.

As I said, thank you for volunteering to be the go-to guy in the future when it comes to DreamGuy. I have a feeling you are in for a fairly rude awakening regarding his behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken my previous post. It was said in haste and in the heat of disappointment. I considered the complaint to be offered genuinely and in good faith, and was frustrated that everyone - someone whom I respect - interpreted my actions with less than Good Faith. I saw a user under rather specific restrictions violate them, and then blame everyone but himself, I and others counseled him that he needed to interact civilly with us. He blew off every attempt to work together and insisted that we were not only wrong, but out to get him. Were I (or most people for that matter) under similar restrictions, and felt like people were trying to get me blocked by being rude, I would go to an admin for help (or even the restricting parties); I think it was missed that DreamGuy never bothered to make any effort to work or even get along with others. It was more frustrating when those noting DG's bad behavior were painted as the villains. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it's tempting, but AN/I is a lousy forum for dealing with incivility. Below is what I wrote, and the above comment by Arcayne seems to me to confirm it. Akhilleus, if you need any assistance monitoring any user, as Arcayne suggests, I'd be happy to be of service. I'm totally uninvolved in the immediate dispute, the only connection being that when I intervened on behalf of PHG when it seemed he was being harassed, with ArbComm's quite precise decision being misrepresented as part of it, I saw similar counter-intervention from Elonka. If we dare to do something that appears to be coming to the defense of such an obviously disruptive editor, the thinking might be, we must be biased or ignorant or simply not get what such a bad person he or she is. I'd highly recommend that Elonka take a vacation from considering herself personally responsible to ensure that PHG or other individuals don't damage the project; or, since she may have special knowledge, that she pass that information on, as needed, to someone who can review it and act without having been personally involved. And then this is what I originally wrote, after only the comment from Elonka:

I'm cheering you, a little, for closing that AN/AE report as you did. I came to the conclusion that DreamGuy was indeed being uncivil, but also that he was experiencing an atmosphere of incivility from others; as one user put it, it was perhaps worse than that of DreamGuy. I hope that you take the time, I haven't checked, to warn DreamGuy that he should not consider this a pass, you could have blocked him and it may have been deserved. But I also think that we must take a stand against rampant incivility, and I see your action as one step toward that. Provoke a user into incivility, or make an uncivil complaint, you might be unable to get him or her sanctioned. (This is *not* a judgment that DreamGuy was provoked in the reported offenses.) However, I'd actually prefer to see formal warnings and sometimes blocks for incivility in, say, an AN/AE report and the related flap. We really have to stop the practice of identifying the bad guy and beating him with sticks. The bad guy is us, excepting only those who are perfect, and if you can find any of those, I'd like to meet them. If they would permit it.--Abd (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, well, I was trying to be discreet, but yes, I feel that since you're actively involved in the discussions involving me, PHG, and Abd, especially at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248), and since editors in that dispute, have overflowed it into the middle of the DreamGuy AE enforcement thread, that it was not appropriate for you to have closed it. I don't see you as an "uninvolved" admin. I do agree it's a bit of a judgment call though. --Elonka 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with anything on the Talk page mentioned, nor was I aware of Akhilleus until now. The assertion of COI for Akhilleus seems fairly thin, but, of course, I don't see everything.--Abd (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess.  :/ That's the thing about AE threads, is that they are generally powderkegs, such that no matter what action is taken, there's going to be an explosion. That's why it's so essential that any decision be made by a completely uninvolved admin, since any possibility of bias, is generally going to be seized upon by either side. I'm not saying that you closed the thread in bad faith, I'm just saying that it was probably not wise for you to be the one that closed it, since you're one of the editors in another active dispute involving some of the participants. At this point, it might be best for you to simply reverse yourself and re-open the thread, maybe with an edit summary like, "Rethinking my status as uninvolved, re-opening thread for someone else to make the call." Other options are possible too, but that's the first one to come to mind, and maybe the quickest way of calming the situation. Then, once the thread is open, you could participate in the thread, and make a recommendation (as I did) and continue with the discussion. But let someone completely uninvolved, make the final decision. That make sense? --Elonka 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of take exception to being painted as the uncivil one when I did nothing uncivil, made no personal attacks. In fact, I encouraged people to not attack DG, and to follow proper procedures if (and, as it turned out, when) his behavior didn't abate. I will cop to not continuing to offer AGF, but I think it unreasonable to do that when precedence has shown it to be ineffective. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dream Guy and mediation

Just one note on the whole DG saga. DG has multiple times rejected mediation. I can remember 3 or 4 attempts, at least, to try to get him to enter mediation on one issue or another. All were either expressly rejected, or ignored. I really doubt that any further attempts to get him into mediation will be any mmore productive. So this one suggestion towards a peaceful resolution, at least, is IMHO destined to fail even before it is (once again) attempted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, one question I would ask: is there some user whom DreamGuy respects? Before mediation should come more informal process, in fact. Classic mediation often involves third parties. We flattened WP:AMA, but real advocates often do far more work negotiating settlements and helping their own clients function better than they do in court conflicts. DreamGuy should be clearly informed that he is on a short leash, but he cannot be, so to speak, sent out into the world on a short leash held by someone who is paying no attention to the conditions DreamGuy faces. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to volunteer as a mediator, Abd? It seems like it might be up your alley. I'd try, but I don't have the time, and I'm not sure that I have the right personality for it. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me just nip this in the bud, and say that I do not think that Abd would be an appropriate choice as mediator. --Elonka 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am all in favor of anything that convinces DG to be more civil. However, as Texas Android pointed out, it hasn't really been shown to be effective. Perhaps DreamGuy sees it as bargaining, when there isn't a bargain to be struck; good behavior is required for continued participation within our community. I applaud the optimistic spirit; I am just concerned that it - like previous attempts - won't end up being the lull before the next complaint has to be filed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If the mediation is between Elonka and DG, she would be correct that I would not be a good single mediator. I tried to negotiate with Elonka when she complained to me about my intervention in an MfD for PHG's working files, and I did not come to the conclusion that she was seeking consensus. However, what I had in mind was someone whom DreamGuy respects, who he might listen to, and who could help him out. He doesn't know me, so whether or not I'd be appropriate for that is a matter for him to decide; he really should find someone and ask that person to help. What that user would do is to "edit" him, i.e., work with him so that he does not fall into incivility due to all the various temptations that arise. At the same time, if people unjustly attack DG, this user would help deal with it. For DG to defend himself, under current conditions, is not a good idea, it is too easy for him to fall into incivility himself. So there would be a tradeoff for DG. He would have to give up some of his freedom to write whatever he pleases whenever he pleases, but he would get someone who would help defend him from incivility, using proper process (which starts with simple negotiation and discussion.) I don't know the circumstances with DG, but suppose that Elonka is having a conflict with him, and suppose that DG has agreed to work with me. I could try to negotiate with Elonka myself, but, given some history between us, that might not work. But does she have someone she trusts? This is classic arbitration, actually: each party chooses an arbiter and then the two, if they can't work out the matter directly, appoint a third that they agree on. That is with formal, binding arbitration, but doing something similar informally, at least to the point of having two not-so-involved users trying to negotiate voluntary agreements, might work here.

The relationship I'm describing is like mentoring, and I've seen it done with problematic editors. It often does not work, but, I'm fairly sure, if the one being mentored chooses well, it might. If DG does not realize he has a problem, if he thinks that all of this is simple persecution, and he's not done anything wrong, it is not going to work. I'm just pointing out the insanity of expecting a user who has had difficulty being civil already, who is then being attacked, to deal with it without incivility. He really should not have to deal with it. The flip side of being on a short leash is that one should be defended by the one holding the leash. Quite simply, though, I do not know DG at all, I have no idea if this would be specifically appropriate for him.--Abd (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you're describing is more encompassing than what I had in mind. DG seems to be having a recurrent problem with Jack the Ripper and related articles, and I think the situation needs some outside input. I'm not going to do it; I don't have time, and my interest in crime/serial killers/etc. is less than nil. But since the situation has deteriorated to the point where there's no genuine communication between DG and the other editors, and no one seems interested in pursuing a constructive situation, the matter is going to come up at AE/ANI, and I imagine DG will get blocked eventually. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I might, I would point out that the problem is not just between Dreamguy and Elonka (who I believe commented but once to the nature of the complaint), but rather DreamGuy and (apparently) most of the editors he comes in contact with. Now, that may sound harsh, until one looks at the sheer volume of established (not IP vandal) editors who spoke out against his civility over the past two years. I would not hazard a guess as to why he is still active, but I think I can speak from authority that mentoring would not be an effective measure, and there are likely a handful of admins and lots of editors who feel it would be the waste of a perfectly good mentor's time and energy.

I was the person who submitted the AE complaint against DreamGuy. Having at first encouraged DreamGuy to become more aware of how his editing style was being perceived, I became disenchanted with the possibility of his rehabilitation after the sockpuppetry nonsense. While some of the folk who argued in DreamGuy's defense have since awarded each other barnstars for their defense of the underdog, the fact remains that this particular AE complaint was not a conspiracy to gang up on DreamGuy. True, he's made plenty of enemies in the past, but few of them actually commented on the complaint submitted - all of the people responding to agree with the complaint were speaking of current civility, etc. violations. DreamGuy is not the underdog here; I cannot state that in clear enough terms. While he has much to offer, the cost/benefit ratio of his inclusion tends to be too high; what is the sense in retaining one editor with personality challenges if it results in others leaving - not just the article - but the Project altogether? A block for DreamGuy should elicit a collective sigh of relief for every principle important to Wikipedians, as well as protection for articles where discussions become mired in pissing contests between DG and practically everyone else..

Again, I apologize for my earlier frustrated reply. I felt like, once again, DreamGuy's usual tactic of 'I'm being chased by this wicked cabal of article OWNers - he'p me, he'p me, please' was again being fallen for. Maybe you saw it that way, maybe you didn't. One of the downsides of being a fresh pair of eyes in an AE complaint is that sometimes the wool can be pulled over them. Perhaps there ws something I could have done to be more clear in submitting my complaint. If there was, I apologize to you. I know that coming into the situation was difficult at best, and that one is likely to be hated by either polarity. I also know that sometimes the canniest writer is often not the correct one. When weighing the sheer volume of evidence brought against DreamGuy - not just in this complaint but in at least three others (two of ArbCom level of seriousness) - I thought my complaint was self-evident. For apparently not providing you with that clarity, I guess I failed you a little bit, Akhilleus. However,i do hope that you will consider re-opening the complaint and seek more eyes on the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with the concept of mediation per se, but I do have a problem with mediation in which some person declares him/herself a mediator and shows up and acts like his or her single voice will be able to undo all other considerations, such as consensus and fair application of Wikipedia policies. In fact, in the past there have been more than one case where someone who was a friend of an individual with a history of conflict with me stepped in calling themselves a mediator and then proceeded to go around badmouthing me and insisting that I must agree to be bound by his mediation or else I was acting in bad faith. I have also seen other cases of mediation in which the mediator simply did not look into the case in any depth at all and jumped to a conclusion, often in ways completely at odds with policy. I certainly have no reason to assume that standard mediation methods will be any different, and especially not when certain specific individuals have demonstrated a willingness to spend many, many hours inventing up false complaints and baiting me with insults and extremely uncivil actions hoping to use my less than enthusiastic response to their abuse a if it were somehow proof of my being a bad editor. In any mediation process, including previous arbitration attempts, Elonka and others group together to try to throw every accusation they can think up. I am here to edit, not to waste hours and hours defending myself against people whose own actions fall far short of the standards expected of editors here. As I have said before, if there were a way of doing mediation that could guarantee neutral parties doing the mediation, and also that the mediators had a history of being here to enforce policies and good faith editing instead of petty personal conflicts, then I would be in favor of such a thing. Of course all my attempts at ignoring previous conflicts and moving forward are ignored when I have editors who blind revert my changes on sight and who spend their times basically stalking my every action hoping to find anything they can to exaggerate into some problem they can complain to someone in authority about. Hell, the fact that Elonka and Arcayne have been trying unsuccessfully for years to get me banned and contact anyone I've ever had any conflict with to try to work together to do so and still have not gotten away with it shows that they have no good faith basis to complain. My edits are good ones, and anyone who looks at my edit history as a whole will see that. DreamGuy (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaos

See to this chaos please diffs,diffsMegistias (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation???? and request for mediation

I showed an official reference instead they made edits without references-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan reference number 30 is not official but it comes from a fan page which means they made unsourced editions several times. This is not a copyright violation??????-URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg These scans were provided by myself why insist to keep them in the discussion page??? I am working in citizendium too. Can you help me and warn these vandals * User:Prede * User:Lord Sesshomaru can i add my official sources in the references of this page????http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan --Saxnot (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)--Saxnot (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

Need help

I've been accused of sockpuppetry. Can you please look into this & help clear my name? Thanks --AI009 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree

...with you. And I didn't come to this thought just today, but today's nonsense confirmed it for me. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Elgin Marbles

Some very interesting points you made there. Please do provide some citations. I would be very interested to see what exactly you have in mind. I would prefer inline citations if that is possible because so far I have seen mainly general references to books or unsubstantiated newspaper statemenents. I am looking forward to your response and thanks again--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Homer

Hi Akhilleus, the problem you face in your article about Homer is that you can find someone who thinks anything about Homer. It is fine to explain that there are a diversity of views, but for example to include Greg Nagy in your list of important Homeric scholars, while excluding Egbert Bakker, Stephanie West, Mark Edwards and a dozen others doesn't look very balanced. I do not know of a single Homeric scholar who agrees with Nagy's theory of a "crystallization of the text," though from his position at Harvard and at the Hellenic Center he does exert influence. It makes it look as though you are a partisan and not an impartial assessor of consensus views in Homeric studies. See what I mean?

In Homeric studies, as in all others, what matters is evidence, facts, and conclusions based on them. I know one author who thinks that Troy is located in Scotland ... Just thinking something doesn't make it true, or worthy of representation in an article on the most important author in the Western tradition, one that at present is in a very poor condition.wakan (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the second person ("your article") implies either a false notion of Akhilleus as someone who thinks he owns the article, or a notion of yourself as someone so clearly defined against Wikipedia editors ("you Wikipedians" have a problem; I can straighten you out) that it calls into question whether you're the right person to make edits purporting to serve the encyclopedia's goal (as uninspiring as it may seem to someone with a special grasp on evidence and facts) of retailing bland consensus. The comparison of Nagy to crackpots looks like fringe ranting, maybe personal animus. No one is claiming the other scholars Wakan names are insignificant, but Nagy's greater prominence than them in Homeric scholarship is a mainstream Classics reality. Wareh (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus, I shouldn't be arguing with you because we are going to get nowhere. A neutral point of view places creationism on a par with evolutionary theory, doesn't it? Some know more about Homer than others, but surely there is a consensus, for example, that the Peisistratean Recension was an invention of Friedrich August Wolf and that, on the evidence, no recension took place in Athens under Peisistratus. M. L. West (and his wife) is a great and towering scholar, but he can be wrong, for example in thinking that Hesiod is older than Homer. Maybe he is, but no one else thinks so, including myself. He thinks that Homer held a pen in his hand and wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, but followers of Parry/Lord like Richard Janko are sure that the texts were dictated, as Milman Parry and Albert Lord argued emphatically and repeatedly. You can never find yourself through the forest of Homeric studies without a theoretical frame built of all we know about archaic life, literacy, and oral tradition. To just say, "Oh, they got papyrus from Psamettichus, it was expensive before," is based on no evidence. It is just a guess. But you have to know a lot to know that. Where there is controversy, this should be made clear, but the problem with this article is that it is not made clear and many things are said that are unsupported by fact or theory. "Some say, because ... but others say, because ... Most agree with the second view, because ..." not "So-and-so says such and such." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakantanka (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Akhilleus, what's this stuff about "vandalism" quoted at the bottom of my talk page? I fixed some minor incacuracies in another article (including one it itself refuted), but somebody reverted them as vandalism! Wha? Get a job?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakantanka (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written an administrator about the situation with the Linear B article. I am happy to do some work on the Homer article in line with our conversation. I can start with the knotty problem of date. I gather that you will be looking this over ... does this sound like a plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakantanka (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

an assumption of bad faith

Hi DreamGuy,

This last part of this comment appears to contain an assumption of bad faith, in that you allege (unnamed) editors aren't trying to create a neutral article but are trying to "savage" the Jesus Myth theory. The discussion on the talk page should provide ample evidence that editors are trying to create an NPOV article; they have a different idea of what NPOV means in this circumstance than you do. Could you please consider rephrasing your comment, so that it doesn't assume bad faith on the part of other editors? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As already explained to you (on this talk page, which you seem to have deleted for some reason...), people can be biased and be completely unconscious about it. It's only bad faith if they are biased, know they are biased, and still push their bias. Most biased people are incapable of acknowledging their bias, and operate in good faith while still lashing out at opinions they don't agree with. My pointing out that people are savaging an article with bias is not an accusation of bad faith, it's meant as a wake up call to some pretty severe bias filling an article.

And, again, it's absolutely absurd for you to try to preach against assuming bad faith while at the same time assuming that my actions assume bad faith. Stop making unwarranted assumptions, ESPECIALLY while making accusations that other people are assuming things. This is just tedious. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. You say: "The whole slant of this article right now isn't trying to cover the topic objectively, it's try to savage the idea. And we can certainly see that intent in the comments of posters here on the talk page and in edit comments." In other words, "some editors" (I wonder who?) intend to savage the JM hypothesis, and don't try to cover the topic objectively. And you say this isn't an assumption of bad faith, because the editors are "completely unconscious" of their bias? Give me a break. What's more, saying that some editors "are incapable of acknowledging their bias" is a personal attack.

If you disagree with me, don't waste both of our time by replying to this. Furthermore, I'm not going to waste your time by bringing stuff like this to your attention on your talk page anymore--instead, I'll post on WP:AE. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Egg on my face!

Sorry about that. I reverted myself. My comment was directed at Levine2112's revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for weighing in. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

hello!

Hi there. Thanks for weighing in on the AfD for kairosis. Coincidentally, I was going through the Iliad article at the same time and noticed you were active there too, so I decided to say hi :) --Quadalpha (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism remarks at DYK

My comments were addressed to Doug, not you. He said he had "reworded" it, and as you had rightly noted that wasn't enough. He did it again and seems to think this is something rather trifling, judging by his apparent lack of concern about being accused of this (something that most editors I know would, and have, taken great umbrage over) and his minimal efforts to address it.

I'm glad you have noticed this before, and have found other instances. This is the sort of thing Blechnic was talking about, and we need, as you have, to take it seriously. Perhaps we need to keep a list of editors who cut and paste and put them on probation. Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR report

I will take another look. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the 4 reverts on Dbachmann's talk. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey on Julian the Apostate

Akhilleus, thank you for inviting me to that discussion. I do have something new to say (wrt Google Scholar Search findings) but previously I had promised myself not to return there. I do believe that most of you, who oppose the renaming, do have valid concerns but the moderate supporters also have their reasoning. I do not intend to repeat the discussion here, only to note that I was disapointed from the reluctance to even consider a small compromise. On the other side, when a party can impose its "POV" (e.g. some Russians started the article on Ivan IV, conveniently omitting the "Terrible" cognomen), the "most common rule" is abolished and no one cares (I have no problem with it, really, just noting the dissonance with the case of Julian). Anyway, I apologize for venting my frustration here. I'm going to break what I promised to myself but still think I will soon regret for it... Dipa1965 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bryges#My protection and my proposal

Would you like to have a look at this edit warring and offer your input? I'm sure that your expertise is superior than me on the issue! It is a strange edit warring, difficult to figure out what is going on even from the diffs?! And the two users involved are not so good in elaborating their arguments!

By the way, how are you? We've time to talk to each other! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the article as a whole are also appreciated, since there are proposals for rewriting and cleaning up.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Roman–Persian_Wars#Why_the_lead_needs_revision

The lead to this article seems just awful to me; in saying so, I offended Yannismarou, who shepherded it through FA (which it may deserve when the lead is cleaned up). Can you suggest a compromise text? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it but I won't be able to do anything substantive tonight. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Help might be needed

Could you pop in at WP:FPC. I heard that there is a bit of disruption going on there. More uninvolved admins may be needed. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A personal note

I'd stepped away from the keyboard because I was getting over-heated. Whatever frustrations I feel, you're a person just like me. Well, based upon statistics you're probably taller and better looking, but leaving that aside...

Several times during this debate it's been suggested by various individuals that I'm operating from some sort of bias. (To be fair, some other editors have flung "such-andsuch is pro NAMBLA!" mud about far too much as well, instead of talking about edits.) Your "don't like it" edit summary struck a nerve, and I'd still suggest that a review of my contributions would not bear out that theory. But "weakest, lamest, most hand-waving line of crap you could possibly have dished out" was beyond the pale on my part, and I apologise.

brenneman 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NB I'm confused by the timestamps, but I'm not suggesting that my edit was in response to your edit summary, no matter which came first.

Suspected sockpuppetry for AlbinoFerret

Hello, I noted that the debate page for this case has been closed with evidence for Kilz being a sockpuppet of AlbinoFerret. I am not affiliated with AlbinoFerret in any case, and I don't participated in this debate (perhaps I should have), but please note that all evidences have been gathered by very strong opponents of AlbinoFerret, mainly in the OOXML article, which makes their discoverings a little dubious for me. I'm not saying that they are wrong (frankly I don't know), so I don't ask to reopen the case, but I doubt of their good faith in this matter. Hervegirod (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Your comments on the Pederasty talk pages are very much to the point, but of course the essential problem here is one of conflicting agendas: the evidence and its interpretation becomes secondary. I shall be returning to the fray in due course.

My primary purpose here is ask for assistance in restoring editing privileges to a previous account which has remained unused for about 9 months after loss of login information (along with other data) due to computer failure. Unfortunately, at some point during the interim, the account was blocked indefinitely by one, Dmcdevit, a situation I discovered only last night. I thought it best to follow the option of contacting the 'administrator' by email, and added an email address to the account for that purpose. No response has been received, and I have noted that the said Dmcdevit does not appear on the current list of administrators.

Since the matter is a sensitive one (not just an 'open proxy' situation) I wondered if the email which contains all relevant information could be forwarded to you, if indeed you are willing to communicate in this way. Other routes to 'unblocking' appear excessively mechanical, and would be conducted in 'open court' as it were. I will certainly welcome your suggestions as to appropriate action to resolve this inconvenience. Domniqencore (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, thank you for your message. The matter is now resolved, and I have placed a statement to that effect on my talk page. Domniqencore (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

I'm sorry I didn't catch your sarcasm, (it's late here) thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad to see we agree on infoboxes in general. - Epousesquecido (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Hi. I've replied on my talk, but I'm afraid you're on the border of being engaged in edit warring on that article, which is a Bad Thing and all that.  Sandstein  20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yanartas

I last saw this article about a year ago; it was then called Chimaera (geography), and was almost entirely about the ancient place of that name in Lycia, which was identified in the nineteenth century with Yanartas, now spelt with a diacritic. DreamGuy, fighting some sort of POV (I'm not sure what he imagines; his edits on the talk page don't explain), moved it to its present title, put on a new header, and made nonsense of some of the middle (most of the prose is unchanged, but it isn't really about the modern spot).

Please come by and give an opinion of whether it should be moved or split, and if so where to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I've been looking for sources on this, and they're not terribly easy to find. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern sources are hard. It gets half a sentence, without the modern name, in the newest Pauly, but the ancient sources are in the article; I'm not sure how I found them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

West's commentary on the Theogony says nothing about Chimaera/Yanartas, which I find slightly surprising. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I've been able to discern from his edit summaries and talk page posts, DreamGuy objects to the theory that the mythological creature was inspired by the geological feature at Chimaera/Yanartas, calling it a minority/fringe POV, and further believes that some of the editing is by locals who want to promote their town. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It may well be local patriotism. As for fringe: the ancients believed it; I would not phrase more strongly than may have inspired myself. But the place was called Chimaera whatever the direction of causation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Iole on DYK

You said

Hi Casliber, I have a question about the promotion of this article, which I believe you are responsible for. I objected to this being a DYK on the template talk page, because the quality of the article is extremely low. Is this kind of objection taken into account for DYK? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I saw there was an issue and left it hoping it would be sorted out so I didn't select it previously. While I was asleep it was placed in the next update (so I presumed some decision must have been made), which I then uploaded. I've been pretty busy and participating in the selecting and uploading of DYK was not high on my priorities but sone of the regulars seem to have been busy so I stepped in for a bit. Now having read it I see the problems. Sorry about that. Well, worth fixing up the article I suppose...I guess my take on it wouldn't be a redirect but splitting the material according to sources. I recall Graves doing this OK in Greek Myths Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth

I have some questions waiting for you at my talk page about the situation. Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greek

Could you provide a third opinion at Talk:Ancient Greek#The map is incorrect; a newbie is objecting strongly to Image:AncientGreekDialects.png, on the grounds, of course, that it is unfair to Macedonia. May Athena bless him and keep him...but you know the rest of that one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole story is that

• there is no timeperiod given (first it read 400 BC (days ago), then 600 BC, now 700BC...)
• obvious Greek speaking lands are missing (Chalkidike, Samothrace, Macedonia (to some doubtful, but the rest is not), Epidamnus and the rest of the Greek ciies in Illyria etc). The time period is crucial in this.
• the caption of "Macedonia" north of Chalkidike clearly suggests that the map is about 4th century BC Greece, since before that, the lands depicte as Macedonian were Thracian.

People... if we stop looking inot anything that has to do with Macedonia because of this political debate, we will achieve nothing. What I asked for, is a correct map. We can contact the guy who made it and just ask him to take off the name of Macedonia and then we can claim that the map depicts the distribution of the ancient Greek dialects in the 9th century BC. Then it would be acceptable.

GK1973 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "WIKI Editors discussed in external forum" threat

Hi Akhilleus - I notice you too appear to have been subjected to the same threat. Is there anything we should do about this or just leave it? New experience to me, any advice appreciated. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Iole

I've set up a plan as a todo list; are you still interested? Do you concur? I'm not sure I'll get to this before Sunday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Regarding this, I have to set the record straight. Special:Contributions/ΚεκρωΨ is an impostor, not a sockpuppet of mine. Could I get some admin help in dealing with it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But wait, there's more. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That was our old friend Wikinger (talk · contribs) aka CBMIBM (talk · contribs). The weirdest sockpuppeter I've ever come across. Impostor and his IP blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah he was weird. My supposed "edits" were innocuous enough; he even went to the trouble of trying to clean up the mess that is my talk page archives. Bizarre. Do you think one of you could delete a couple of redundant archives created when I was experimenting with the bots? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops, sorry for not spotting the impersonator. Which archives do you need deleted? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FP has taken care of it, don't worry. Thanks, anyway. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Iranian nationalists

Akhilleus, I am going to step back from this dramatic situation. Feel free to review the evidence on my talk page and see if it can be resolved via informal discussion (or if not, via RfC). I am sympathetic to that admin and hope they will agree to avoid administrating in areas where their personal feelings are too strong. We all have blind spots and it would be a shame to lose an otherwise good admin over such a mistake. Jehochman ^Talk 06:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation re Battle of Opis

A mediation has been opened on Battle of Opis, an article with which you have been involved recently. I have listed you as a party but please feel free to remove yourself if you do not want to participate in the mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333

Thanks for handling that situation. Can you also block Jsn9333 (talk · contribs) as the obvious puppetmaster? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since You Deleted the "Chess.Net" Entry ...

I can understand deleting pages that are self-serving or trivial.

Therefore, would you please consider deleting the "Internet Chess Club" entry? It is nothing more than a self-serving entry designed to boost its membership. Especially the final entry on the page, which serves no purpose at all.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.121.23 (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Any idea what a Bratz doll could be? I'm assuming it's not something with which Hektor would be associated, so probably not mocking your username. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bratz. I think Ariobarza is trying to insult us as teenagers/pre-teens with too much time on our hands. Or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza's continued personal attacks are unacceptable. Having reviewed his edits systematically, I believe there are significant concerns about him that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence

Just to inform you I have referred to comments you made as part of my evidence in this case. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please respond at AN/I

I've made some points and asked some questions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions. Some of that relates to your blocks. I don't question your good faith, but I do have concerns over the reasons for the blocks. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it you might also want to look at my objections here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closed Acorn AN/I endlessly being reopened. For a sick man who's "very weak" noroton sure has the energy for lots of typing, don't he?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Delphi Article

Dear Akhilleus, I am currently living in Germany far from my reference library. The equation with Delpheus being originally the "womb" was I believe made by Fontelroy? Unfortunately I cannot even remember if I have his name right. It is claiming we need a citation for this fact. Can you help me. Warmest regards, John D. Croft (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Eureka, it was Fontenrose. John D. Croft (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WAIT

look at my ban page recently, I have a new message you should read, just look at it!--Ariobarza (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Love Systems

Hi Akhilleus,

I've been working on a company page and I could use some feedback on the page. I've followed the guidelines of WP:Corp but I'm not sure if everything is fine. If you have time to review it, I would really appreciate that. The page in questions is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coaster7/Love_Systems.

Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Coaster7, I just had time to skim the page and it doesn't look to me like there are enough reliable sources that cover Love Systems specifically. I notice that this article has been deleted before; I'm not very familiar with the procedure for restoring an article, but I think you need to go through deletion review, and I don't think the current form of the article would pass. Sorry. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Amusing

"So Jacques Lacan is a scientist? News to me." Hey, next you'll be saying Cagliostro wasn't a physicist! In other news, linguists have made a fascinating new discovery about the nature of language [2]: "And for your other point, 'basta' is Italian. Its not English. Therefore, its not a word".--Folantin (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but was Ariosto a Greek Italian or a Macedonian Italian? --Folantin (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh god no. Actually, I think I should make one of my New Year's Resolutions that I won't get caught up in Wiki-disputes with tendentious editors about ethnicity, piddling genre distinctions, or other hair-splitting...but I bet that resolution would last about a day. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm the same and I had a feeling this particular debate would head this particular way. I saw this come up on my watchlist and I had a choice of this or more Graeco-Macedonian malarkey on the Seleucid Empire page (mostly engineered by an SPA who's been haunting there for the past few months), so I picked the more novel of the two options. But I really must try to cut down on this kind of thing in 2009.--Folantin (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG ArbCom request

I've posted a request for possible additional evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Spectacular

"Spectacularly clueless", lol. You're a master of le mot juste. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

I've used variants on the phrase many times on Wikipedia. There's a lot of cluelessness around here, sadly... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [3]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Akhilleus/Archive 15's Day!

User:Akhilleus/Archive 15 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Akhilleus/Archive 15's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Akhilleus/Archive 15! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof or source about Armenian genocide..Wikipedia has to be neutral and objective.Please can you answer to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustunol (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Armenian genocide, and then read the books and articles in the references section. Wikipedia does have to be neutral and objective, and that means that it reports the consensus of mainstream scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know that are you armenian or working for them...I read the history many times about Armenian genocide.. Armenians are right if you read the documents which written by Armenians..Turks are right if you read the documents which written by Turks..So how you can be sure that Armenians are telling truth and publising the way which they are right.. I would liek to get your name and all information about you please..My knowledge and my english is not enough to solve this subject..Thats way I need your information to give to people concerned about that.. And after that if you wish to block me you can do it with out any hesitation.. Thank you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustunol (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Petrucci

FYI, since I have a feeling (see here, here) that Mario Petrucci is coming back, Anne Prouse has been mentioned in the press as Petrucci's fiancée.[4] Wareh (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dio

• A survey is being taken for the discussion in regard to Dio (Talk:Dio#Survey), I would be appreciative if you could vote whenever you are available. Thank you. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing Semicolon

I screwed up. I did an edit summary that reads Restoring section as per March 15, Akhilleus (please stop edit waring on this, justify deletions)) when it should read Restoring section as per March 15, Akhilleus; (please stop edit waring on this, justify deletions)). The result is an edit that looks like I'm asking you to stop edit waring, rather than restoring a section to your last version. Would you like me to do a null edit to clarify or doesn't matter? jbolden1517^Talk 16:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Epaminondas

Hi, Akhilleus!

Yesterday, I found out that the above article, one of my favorites, and a great work from Robth, is submitted to WP:FAR, because it does not fulfill the current FA criteria. I would like to work on it, but one of the article's major referencing problems is the lack of pages in the books used in the citations. I'd be grateful, if you could have a look and check whether, by chance, you have in your library any of these books (because I have none!), so that we can then add the pages. Tiring and boring task, I know, and that is why I ask it from you, only if you have some time to devote. Thank you and cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hasdrubal the Fair

The eye of a classicist would be appreciated at Hasdrubal the Fair. Please have a look at the talk page. Thanks. 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

HI

HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

Hey Akhilleus, thanks for your input on this issue already. The dispute is rumbling on at Talk:Siena College - I'd be grateful if you'd take a look and offer your thoughts. --hippo43 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Thank you for interest in this discussion. Have your read my comments and noticed that I present many more sources for Wilno (reliable and fully verifiable on Google Print) then MK does for Vilnius? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping. There is much discussion, and I would like to ask you to reconsider whether you still think the argument you used is valid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Humming praise

Hi I see your reverting my Oresteia work. I want you to know with my respect, I disagree— things are good to IDO coupon. It is no problem and I will be fine. Much love for the New Year! Linguistixuck (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprising news

Apparently you are some sort of sock puppet of mine [5]. I'm also surprised to learn that I'm female. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Let's assume good faith. I have another suggestion regarding this strange turn of events [6]. --Folantin (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Romila Thapar

Can you take at the recent edits to this article, and the talk-page discussions about labeling her (and other historians) "Marxist" ? While User:Nshuks7 has at least been trying to look for sources and defend this edit; some newly-revived old accounts

• Tolkaapiyanaar (talk · contribs)
• MrinaliniB (talk · contribs)
• Dharman Dharmaratnam (talk · contribs)
• Tolkaapiyanaar (talk · contribs)

are just blindly reverting to their preferred version. User:Regents Park and I have manged to clean up the BLP violations, but I am pinging you and User:Nishkid64, since you have been previously involved with this article and may recognize editing-patterns. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A favor?

Hi, Akhilleus. I was wondering if you could do me a favor. There's an AfD going on for an article about a forthcoming Doctor Who special. The discussion has been fairly overwhelmingly "Keep", but it isn't scheduled to close for another few days. There's also a consensus (at the AfD and on the article's talk page) that the article is misnamed. (There's some dispute over what the correct title should be, but there's consensus that it shouldn't be "2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)", mainly because reliable sources have indicated that it will be broadcast in November.)

Meanwhile, the next Doctor Who special is scheduled to air tomorrow, and credible reports indicate that the title of the following special will be revealed in its end credits ("Doctor Who will return in..."). So by tomorrow evening the dispute over the title will be moot — but, as I'm sure you know, moving a page while there's an ongoing AfD is awkward.

So I was wondering whether you would be willing to close the AfD early, under WP:SNOWBALL. I think the consensus is clear enough, but of course it wouldn't be proper for me to make that determination or close the AfD myself, because I'm a participant. If the AfD is closed, then when the proper title is revealed, the article can be moved without complication.

If you're not comfortable with this, that's fine — just let me know either way. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken care of already, although since a redirect wasn't left behind at 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) or Talk:2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who), I'm not quite sure what the eventual result was. Is it Waters of Mars? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's The Waters of Mars; the title was indeed revealed at the end of Planet of the Dead. The old article name was deleted after about two minutes of discussion at WP:RFD, which I really don't understand, but it's not terribly important. As you say, it was taken care of — sorry to bother you over nothing! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I would have been happy to handle it if I had been online in time. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)