User:Adam Carr/Talk Archive4

Oops! No problems, I'll look into the new article soon. --Zero 13:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't have a better photo of John Monash. All the decent portrait paintings in the AWM collections are under AWM Copyright. While they are unrestricted for non-commercial use, I wouldn't feel safe using them here (unless there's a precedent). There are a number of full-figure photos that are clear of copyright but I don't know if they are any better than the current photo. Gsl 05:13, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As you make your way through the House, note that there are two Mike Rogers: one from Alabama and one from Indiana. How do you want to disambiguate them? Danny 12:25, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, and I am on my way to work again. Be back in like 12 hours. Danny 12:37, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the city of Carson, California. RickK 06:59, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First of all, congrats for finding that Britannica for such a prize.

I have made a stub Deportation altough there is a population transfer. I do not know if this falls into your interests, but I am definitely no historian and you might like the subject. I made the "deportation" article bc there was NONE and the "population transfer" sounded more like a "solution" than a "problem" and does not even cite the USSR's deportations etc...

(Added later): I have been told about the difference between pop. transf ("bi-directional") and deportation ("uni-directional") but anyway I think the article on deportation is still of interest.

Just in case you feel like doing it. Pfortuny 12:12, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC).

Thanks for answering. Yes, I think what you thought I thought is what I did think. :) Pfortuny 16:23, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the Flag of Turkey, I have added the info. you gave me and given you credit on the talk: page for that article.

ThaGrind 01:39, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry mate - just used to the Yank date method that's used so much on here. also fixed a few spelling/grammer errors like "...when the Page..." PMA 14:40, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Nice work on Mother Teresa. I am glad you have decided to come back. I have seen your contributions in the page history and can see that you will be very valuable. BTW, cool wall of knowledge. Greenmountainboy 18:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I saw your comment about the David Rohl article, & although I'm not a fanboy of the man, I think his primary problem is not that he's a crank but that he is surrounded by cranks.I've been reading his Pharaohs and Kings book (the U.S. version of A Test of Time), & although it is trivialized by an overabundance of photographs & Rohl's inclination to recount story & anecdote whether it helps him make his point or not, still Rohl does set out a plausible thesis about redating parts of Ancient Egyptian History. (I haven't read his section where he discusses the history of the ancient Israelite kingdom, because I'm not convinced that there is enough historical evidence to prove it's existence.) And he takes the time to explain at least some of the reasoning behind the accepted chronology -- material not easily available to the non-professional without the funds or connections to keep up with the secondary literature.

So does that make me a believer of Rohl's theories? Not really: I've noticed some surprising errors of fact in his book, & a tendency to go over his opponent's arguements with a fine comb while defending his own with a wide brush. And one or two of his arguments have set off my, er, bull-shit detector, so I am waiting until I can consult reviews of his book in back issues of Antiquity, American Journal of Archaeology, & Scientific American before I accept his more convincing arguments.

Still, it appears that Rohl has enough followers that we need something about him in Wikipedia. Yet the current article is clearly a mess, & I hope to rewrite it when I finish my research. -- llywrch 21:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There should be an article on Rohl, but I think the man is definitely wrong. He absolutely can't fit Mesopotamian chronology into his scheme. See [1] for some extensive refutations... john 22:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I believe you said on the Village Pump that you have lists of British MPs? Well, we'd really quite like, to start with a MPs elected in the UK general election, 1992 and a MPs elected in the UK general election, 1997. If you have the raw unwikified data, I'm sure we'd be happy to format it. Morwen 22:58, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed I did get to enjoy our beloved sun.

I've also linked the Serbian elections at Current_events#December 28, 2003, if you ever get to it.

I think including the name of the chamber (in this case "Duma") is more informative than simply "parliamentary" or "legislative" since the whole parliament did not go up for election. Move it if you like though. --Jia ng 12:04, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)

I agree that the barons in question had no heirs. However, the use of an ordinal is to indicate that the individuals had titles by right, and not courtesy. A lack of an ordinal seems to indicate that the title was by courtesy, not held in one's own right. (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage#A_couple_questions for further discussion.) -- Lord Emsworth 21:53, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

And if I am not mistaken, in the first line of Henry Northcote, Baron Northcote, you have called the subject "Henry Northcote, 1st Baron Northcote", and the same goes for the Lord Casey. To be consistent, should not the article titles also match? -- Lord Emsworth 21:58, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just discovered that the website of the Governor-General concurs that "1st" should be used, but only in the case of Lord Northcote, and not in the case of Lord Casey, for some reason which I do not know: [2]. -- Lord Emsworth 22:05, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

Casey was a life peer, while Northcote was a hereditary peer who just happened to die without issue. --Wik 22:26, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

Well if I wrote 1st Baron in the text I will change it, since it is wrong. Clearly Casey as a life peer cannot have an ordinal, since life peerages are not inheritable. I will accept Lord E's opinion in the case of Northcote, though it seems strange. I notice incidentally that Disraeli appears simply as Benjamin Disraeli, without his title at all. Adam 01:44, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is already a convention on not indicating life peerages in the title, I think. -- Lord Emsworth 05:11, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

Dr Carr,

Please see my comments on the separated tables at User_talk:Jdforrester. As far as Lord Bruce is concerned, I must say that I felt that some would have strenuously objected to the move to Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce, considering, for instance, that all of the modern British Prime Ministers have the "benefit" of having articles not entitled with the inclusion of the peerage: Lord Stockton, Lord Attlee, Lord Balfour, etc, and therefore I would have come, for only changing the Australian names, under suspicion for anglocentric editing. All of the aforementioned in mind, I instead started a discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage. -- Lord Emsworth 00:40, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Double redirects do not work. So after moving a page, you need to click on "what links here" at the bottom menu bar, spot the double redirects, and fix them. I just did that for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. It still needs to be done for the rest of the pages you moved. --Jia ng 03:48, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you the Adam Carr who owns [3] with pictures of British prime ministers? If so, are the images public domain? Can they be used for Wikipedia? john 05:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the National Portrait Gallery seems to suggest that one is supposed to pay to use their images... john 06:25, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I really enjoyed that. As for the name, I don't think they were ever sufficiently organized to have a single name. I will try and check today. Danny 12:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Danny and User:Zero000 (perhaps the same person?) are repeatedly deleting vast amounts of material in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. Danny has made hysterical and false claims it is a "right-wing" anti-Arab, pro-Israeli point of view...to allow an Arab point of view to be shown. (Yeah, you read that right. He thinks mentioning Arab points of view in public is pro-Israeli POV violations!) Please understand, this is not a difference of opinion on what to include or how to phrase something. Like you, I am flexible. The problem is that Danny refuses to even allow the issue to be discussed, and offers no alternatives or constructive criticism. He just is engaged in a vandalism campaign, and refuses to allow anyone to edit the article. That is a clear violation of all Wikipedia rules. Others have also spoken out against the vandalism of Danny, and labeled it precisely as such. RK 02:16, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I (or was it Zero?--I can't seem to keep my multiple personality disorder in check ...) have been deleting a long list of quotes he gives in Israeli-Palestinian conflict called something like "Palestinian views on the peace process in their own words." He also listed us on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Whatever ... Danny 02:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great picture! I love talking to WW2 vets. Here is an exhibit I worked on at my Museum that might interest you. [4] Danny 03:38, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, my pages are gone, and I am gone too. Before I go, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the official name of the Bund is: Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund in Lite, Poyln un Rusland, i.e., General Jewish Workers' Union in Lithuania, Poland and Russia. It's been fun. Danny 06:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed the statements at College of Cardinals. I hope I have explained it properly: advising the Pope (but no power by itself) and electing a new Pope (when vacant see). Would you mind fixing the English? :)

I <shame>have not been to Barcelona for more than 10 years</shame>. Yes, it is nice, isn't it? As a matter of fact, I find Paris' Arch of Triumph quite funny, as well (there are several battles which cannot be treated as "triumphs" there).

Best wishes for this year.Pfortuny 09:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, the plan to install a sane policy with regards to peerage title teeters on the brink of failure. Can you think of anyone else likely to support our position? john 00:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make such criticisms of me. The only ad homenim attacks came from Danny and Zero, against me, against Humus Sapiens, and against others. Those two (Danny and Zero, that is) have of late gone a bit out of control, which is why their words and actions were censured. (Have you read the hateful personal attacks they repeatedly made on multiple articles of late? I get the idea that your comments to me were made out of a lack of knowledge of their unjustifiable actions.) I have done nothing wrong here; I repeatedly stated that I would like to work with others, and encourage joint editing. It is other people who refuse any compromise, delete articles, and make non-stop insults. In contrast, I have publicly praised Danny's knowledge many times, and I have repeatedly tried to work with him. Thus, your words make no sense to me. Danny, however, made it clear to me over a period of month's that his anger at Zionists was severe. That is too bad; if he was less emotional on such issues, he could return to the wonderful contributor that he used to be. RK

According to [5], he changed his name in 1924 when his wife inherited the great Swinton estate at Masham in Yorkshire. This was actually fairly common in British wills among the gentry, I think - requiring surname changes to get inheritances. At any rate, is there anything to be done to salvage this peerage mess? john 07:14, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. My current state of constantly sitting in front of my computer is making me see all this as far more important than it actually is. It does irk me, though, that so many people who don't seem to have any particular interest in British history feel it's their job to come in and tell us how we need to do it. I certainly don't go to votes on science article titling conventions and tell all the people who actually work on such articles how to do their business. At any rate, hopefully we'll win the first vote, and have enough votes to be able to secure a fairly restrictive convention as to who doesn't get described as a peer. john 07:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Popes are listed by their regnal names, as in Pope John Paul II. This, of course, accedes to the "commonly used name" rule, of which the masses are so fond. In fact, until just now, there was no article for John Paul II at Karol Wojtyla. An exciting new redirect project for me! john 07:36, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Doomed...DOOMED-HA-HA-HA!!

Noticed your comment on Jimbo's page, where you might have noticed that I too was lobbying. I agree: Wikipedia has terrible structural problems. We who continue here anyway clearly are nuts--especially the smart ones among us. Oh well. Even the Titanic needed a band.168... 08:27, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You want me to comment on RK? Hmmmm, I can't think of anything that would not be regarded as a personal attack, so I'd better not. ;) Regarding the structure thing - I'm inclined to agree with you but I wouldn't go shouting about it. All Jimbo will say is "that's not the wiki way" etc etc. People have suggested in the past that we need more structure, but then people start comparing things to the ODP which never goes down well [6]. Anyway, I'm not convinced that would have helped the Danny situation as his unfortunate departure seems to be have triggered by Jimbo just as much as by RK. Angela . 10:39, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Danny's email address seems to be "daniwo59 at aol.com". Mine is "nought_0000 at yahoo.com". I'm not in touch with him yet but will try. I'm devastated by these developments. --Zero 12:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Administration

Adam, you have, in case you did not notice, been nominated for the Administratorship: see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- Lord Emsworth 13:00, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Certain users are entirely adamant that an individual such as yourself ought to become an administrator. One could respond to such requests by either quashing all suggestions of your administratorship through a re-iteration of one's aforementioned position, or one could of course reverse one's position - I, for one, believe that you could take the latter position quite safely, as it would be very helpful in moving certain pages to certain locations. And incidentally, I have found out some information that is either very depressing or very wonderful: the results of polls (as opposed to votes, as in votes for deletion, etc.) are not binding. -- Emsworth

January 12[edit]

Speaking of thanks at Académie Française I should confer equal thanks for your peremptory and disrespectful deletion of material that was clearly in the process of being expanded by two separate persons. The Académie has had more than 700 members since 1634, and I am sure that all the seats will be filled in due course. If you have other complaints about the text portion of the article, then go ahead and fix them instead of overreacting by calling it a mess. ☮ Eclecticology 02:09, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

You sorted out Martin Bormann pretty well so could you have a look at Nicholas II of Russia and see if you can fix that PMA 03:40, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] You recently wrote:

People editing this article should be aware that Lirath does this at every article he visits, whether he knows anything about the subject or not. His edits should be reverted and he should be ignored until he gets bored and goes away. Adam 09:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As a victim of Lir's "contributions", I am eager to know whether you have any estimate for how long it takes Lir specifically to "go away". Also, you may want to contribute to: Wikipedia:Problem_users#User:Lir (again)

Peak 06:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate - to use a cliche you are the eight wonder! PMA 06:33, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Mailing_lists, or specifically, http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l (Jimbo responds regularly there). --Jia ng 00:53, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, this is a rather raw dump of material rather than a prepared piece.

The Zionism page has a couple issues. one is that target area of Zionism since 1917, at the latest if not before, is limited to the geographic region centered around Jerusalem. The definition should indicate this. Zionism in Uganda or any of a number of other places, while considered, was conclusively rejected at the sixth (? have to check the number) Zionist congress. the last holdouts for somewhere other than Zion ceased activity in 1917. The reference to Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah help to explain why people from a variety of countries, laguages and professions would leave their homes to go somewhere far away in a period in which travel as dangerous.

The "Zionism today" section gives one the impression that Zionism has been discredited among Jews in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a number of Jewish academics that adopt non-Zionist or anti-Zionist views but they are a fringe group as can be seen by the unending stream of people and funds collected from millions of families to further the goal of Zionism. Similarly the ultra-orthodox anti-Zionists are a fringe group. Chabad, a much larger ultra-orthodox group (than neturei karta and similar groups) is strongly Zionist.

The page as a whole reads as if Zionism was in some way archaic or shameful rather than a remarkably successful movement that has revived a language, provided safe haven for a people subjected to centuries of unremitting hostility in Europe (survive but not thrive credo), created a near-first world economy in an area with little natural resources in the face of determined, persistent hostility. Even Koffi Annan charaterizes the Zionism as Racism UN resolution as a shameful episode in the history of the UN UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once said that the General Assembly's resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism was a low point in the organisation's history. That resolution has been repealed, but sadly, its destructive legacy continues." [7] (this is a rather difficult statment to find)

The Anti-Zionism page has many of the same problems as well as two arguments regarding "identification between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is not possible" that are interesting:

some anti-Semites were pro-Zionist.

some Republicans are pro-choice, but the party is definatively anti-choice and is identified as such by a large number of voters (a majority) in the USA. one can not logically argue that "A != B because some B's are anti-A". "identification between Republican party and anti-abortion is not possible because some pro-choice folks are Republicans". Its not true. Its not logical.

even a small minority of anti-Zionist Jews is sufficient to show that there is no necessary identification between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

by the same argument, "even a small minority of anti-Semite Jews is sufficient". this is also, bizarre, there are anti-Semitic Jews, some of them are anti-Zionist as well (dont know of any that arent, but there may well be some). The rise of anti-Semitic activity by anti-Zionist elements in Europe is so marked that the EU commissioned a study which it then surpressed due the inflammatory nature of the conclusions. (sometimes the truth is quiet, sometimes it is inflammatory.) The adoption of anti-Semitism by a large number of anti-Zionists should be documented on the Anti-Zionism page. The report should be referenced.

The statement that "identification between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is not possible" is simply true. We need only cites examples of anti-Zionists that are not tainted by anti-Semitism and are reputable individuals. Direct example that contradicts and demonstrates the falsity of the the idea that "all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism".

Your thoughts, please. OneVoice 18:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(my reply to this is at OneVoice's talk page. Adam 06:33, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Hey Adam. Nice work on the Athens article! - Mark 08:32, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of your intentions regarding the Australian Governors-General. After seeing the comments made by you and Jdforrester, I have come to the conclusion that it would be acceptable to separate tables, as long as all of the peerage titles appear in a separate table. So please feel at liberty to perform the separations. -- Emsworth

Hi Adam. I just read your reasons for declining sysop status. Fair enough - you know your own mind best - though I'd certainly be happy to vote in your favour should you ever change your opinion. In the meantime, if you stumble across anything that needs sysop powers to deal with (e.g., a page with history that needs to be deleted to make room for a move), just sing out. I'm not on-line much at present (I am just not getting the free time right now) but I'll be happy to oblige. Later on, I imagine that you will reconsider - sysoping is no big deal. Cheers - Tannin 12:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm posting the same note here that I posted to jiang: I don't particularly care for Lancemurdoch's viewpoints and find his comments on ed poor needlessly aggravating, but that doesn't justify posting stuff on his user page. Take it to wikipedia:conflicts between users, like you would for anyone else. --snoyes 08:16, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are two policies involved: no personal attacks, and not editing the user pages of others. I am not interrested in who started it, it takes two to tango, as they say. You could have taken the moral highground by raising the issue on wikipedia:conflicts between users. It is also incorrect to say that I deleted your comment, I moved it to his talk page where it belongs. --snoyes 08:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am in touch with Danny by email. His pages were restored at his request. He says his return will be gradual however. --Zero 09:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Getting to it. Sorry, I got distracted. Meelar 02:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Saw your post re: the Earl of Ypres at Lord Emsworth's talk page. I don't think there's actually technically a rule on the subject, although Ypres is probably the only example of this that I can think of offhand. The archives of alt.talk.royalty provide some discussion of this issue, if you're interested (search on "Earl of Ypres") john 04:54, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Generally, I think that providing peerage titles in the form of "Rank of X" is avoided when X is outside the British Isles because doing so might give the impression that the UK has sovereignty over the said area. But, as John writes, I don't think that there is any set rule. -- Lord Emsworth 12:24, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

There are four further examples I could find: The Duke of Ireland (Peerag eof England; extinct) The Earl of Jersey (Peerage of England), The Viscount of Canada (Peerage of Scotland; abeyant); Earl of Auckland (Peerage of the UK; extinct). -- Lord Emsworth

Jersey and Ireland, at least, were within the dominions of the King who granted them. Auckland is not an example. The (currently existing) barony and the earldom are named after a place in Durham. The New Zealand city is named for the 1st Earl, not vice versa. Canada would seem to be an example, though. john 02:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd keep these out of the title, and note them with a disclaimer. For example, for an heir who held the title "Duke of Ireland" after Ireland left the UK, I'd say something like "held the title Duke of Ireland, granted his father by the English crown, though this title was not recognized by Ireland." --Delirium 03:04, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

The Duke of Ireland was only about in the 14th century, and the title was quickly revoked, so that's not really problem. His article is at Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford. As to the others, I have no idea about the Viscount of Canada (which seems to have been a subsidiary title of the Earls of Stirling), but John French, 1st Earl of Ypres is listed as such. I don't believe that the Belgian government has ever objected. Noble titles do not generally imply actual rule over a place, and have not since at least the 15th century or so. john 05:40, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Medical Scientism was a crock as written and Mr Natural Disaster scares me, but I can't agree that the title is NPOV of itself. Or if it is, then Scientism should also go, no? Bmills 10:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm keeping this and Alternative medicine on my radar. Not an expert, but I'm an asthmatic and so are my kids. You should hear some of the advice that well-meaning people give regarding treatment, mostly amounting to "throw away those nasty inhalers and do the following (pick from a list of silly/marginally useful/harmful/potentially fatal things)". Bmills 10:43, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How could one trace the IPs of David Gerard and Mr Natural? Bmills 12:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See my (somewhat late) reply on my talk about the "Predecessor"-link to Ruth Metzler-Arnold-- User:Docu

You've got mail![edit]

Wikipedia deserves an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism. And, it will be addressed one way or the other. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The singular form is "phenomenon". --snoyes 05:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the help with Lir...not that we've gotten anywhere, but it's always nice not to be a lone voice in the wilderness. 168... 06:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Try to be more tactful in your dealings with Lancemurdoch. There's no need to insinuate that he's 'uncivilized' since he doesn't 'detest Communism.' He has largely been a good counter-balancing force, especially on the Shining Path. He strikes me as an orthodox Marxist, which is a bit too deterministic and rigid for my tastes. But someone more inclined to link socialist ideologies to structural and organizational realities should be welcomed on Wiki, balancing the often values-laden and simplistic tracts of other users. Discussion pages on Wiki too often mirror the sterile controversies of the Cold War period. When compromising with users that hold views that are more conventional in the rich English-speaking democracies, Lancemurdoch can be a force for NPOV, eschewing the tone of post-Cold War triumphalism. Whether we agree with his views or not, he should be afforded the same measure of respect as any other frequent, well-meaning contributor. 172 11:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't dealt with Lance yet. I just saw several of his contributions, and reacted with cautious optimism. I foresaw controversies over NPOV, but greeted the presence of an old-time orthodox Marxist as adding to Wiki's diversity.

While he may be a prickly character, anticommunist pronouncements will only provoke him and heighten his belligerence. If you strove to focus your arguments with him on matters of evidence, sources, and analysis, rather than the "moral dimension," perhaps he'd respond coolly and positively. I know that this goes against your principles, but it can be an effective means to an end when dealing with rogue contributors. This strategy may keep the ideological response and counter-response (and the consequent rudeness) to a bearable minimum.

Perhaps it's a good idea to hold off on a ban right away. He can serve a valuable function on Wiki. Too many communist-related articles are obviously written by lay readers of Robert Conquest, RJ Rummel, Joshua Muravchik, or The Black Book of Communism. He has the potential to be a helpful counterweight to some of the more flamboyant anticommunism that creeps its way into articles. 172 13:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Robert Conquest, you might might to fix Pol Pot too - our "friend" LanceMurdoch attacked that article :( PMA 15:57, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear enough earlier. I mentioned Robert Conquest, along with the others, because of the style of his prose, along with the popularity of his work, more than anything else. (Lynne Viola, Alexander Dallin, Moshe Lewin, Roberta T. Manning are far better sources anyway than Conquest, but I'll let this go since I don't feel like writing a book review.)

Anyway, NPOV, after all, is a matter of tone as well. Nor was I suggesting that there's no need to keep an eye on Lance. I was also a vocal opponent of banning RK, who has a similar set of flaws, but produces great work (when edited for NPOV by others). I was merely suggesting a strategy for dealing with Lance. It might go against your principles, and I'd respect that, but it could enlicit a less doctrinaire and more agreeable posture on his part. 172 16:43, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles on North Korea that might be of interest. Here's an AP article on economic reforms: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040107/cm_usatoday/nkoreangoodguysrequireusassistance And here's a USA Today op/Ed piece by Selig Harrison http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040107/ap_on_re_as/growing_together_1

BTW, my comments on the Conquest page were facetious, in case that's not self-evident. The article was in far worse shape when I wrote the smart-ass comment in March, so the sarcasm was more obvious then. Kudos for your plans to revamp the article. Just be careful to keep the new article within the NPOV constraints. It might be a good idea to include the criticisms (especially on sources and use of the old-fashioned totalitarian model) from Sovietologists and agricultural specialists like Viola, Lewin, and Dallin. A note on e.g. Hobsbawm's emphases on the continuities with the Tsarist era would also be good for balance as well. 172 00:56, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mailing lists[edit]

While reading User talk:Jiang without reason, I found a question from you "I know nothing of WikiEN-List. Enlighten me." dated 13th January. I don't know whether now you are aware of the existence of our mailing lists, so I refer you to Wikipedia:Mailing lists. Optim 03:34, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A little while ago I made a proposal on the mailing list for changing the process of editing problematic pages. It didn't get a great amount of comment, but notably it didn't get strongly attacked either. It is less drastic than your proposed changes but more likely to be accepted. The initial proposal is here and some further comments are here. Viajero suggested trying it out with a new article, but I wonder what you think about trying it out with anti-Zionism. As you can see, some of the details of the new process are still undefined. --Zero 06:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is no authority to approve or disapprove it, so we should just decide on a process, announce it on the Talk page and in the mailing list, then go for it if there is no major objection. Probably we would have support from Danny and Viajero (but I didn't ask them yet). The committee is the part of the process that I'm least sure about. Maybe we can try it without a committe first. We would copy the existing article to Anti-Zionism (draft), invite edits, then when we have some degree of consensus get someone like Ed Poor to copy the draft to the official article. If the experiment fails, it fails, and if agreement is never reached we can reconsider forming a committee. I'll invite Danny and Viajero to comment now.--Zero 10:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Greek politican photos[edit]

Hello. May I ask you whether the photos contained in George papandreou, senior, George Papandreou, junior, Andreas Papandreou, Costas Simitis, George Papadopoulos are in the public domain (at least those uploaded by you) according to your knowledge? Where did you find the photos? Thanks. Optim 17:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Athens photos[edit]

This or the next week I plan to have some new Athens photos ready. Maybe we will have to make an Images of Athens article, too. I will inform you when I upload them so that you can have a look:) Optim 17:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Greek politician photos again[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your answer. I don't know much on copyright, but since you use photos from Google, I advise you to have a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights and I please you to check whether it is legal for Wikipedia to use the photos in this way. Have a look at the GFDL license, too. If you are not sure, it may be better to remove/delete the photos, just to be sure that Wikipedia will not face any kind of legal problems in the future. I don't really know whether there is any problem; I just inform you that Wikipedia is a bit sensitive regarding copyrighted material, in case you don't know. In case you are assured there is absolutely no problem, sorry for my intervention. I trust you that you don't upload copyrighted pics without persmission. (this is not a personal attack or an accusation of any kind, dont take it personally:)) with Best Wishes, Optim 00:12, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Peerage[edit]

Dear Dr Carr: I really don't think that there is one "Continental system" when it comes to nobility. I would assume that "nobility" would encompass the Peerage and the so-called Continental system. However, I agree that there need not be a separate article on the Continental system; nobility should cover it entirely. -- Lord Emsworth 12:23, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

By the strangest coincidence, I met Lustiger today. He was attending a conference for clergy sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. Oh, and he was talking very cordially to lots of rabbis too, from across the spectrum. Danny 22:48, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry that my intervention caused you to have a change of heart on Medical scientism. I got it wrong by underestimating Mr NH's "abilities". Bmills 09:38, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to propose a replacement for the section, using bits of the existing text and some extra. I may also propose some changes in a few other places. However, I'm really strapped for time and WP can't get much priority for a few days. --Zero 12:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

It is indisputable!

There is NO Edit War in Alternative medicine, nor is the content in dispute. You guys are playing dirty. And, of course, all of my editing is made in order to improve articles. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

on non-Jewish and anti-Jewish Jews[edit]

Please see Talk:Yevsektsiya. I like the way you expressed it. (Note to self: next time, more definite articles). Humus sapiens 11:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your map of the separation barrier is good but somewhat out of date in the Jerusalem area especially. The most up-to-date version I know is http://www.btselem.org/Images/Maps/Full_Fence_Map_2003_Eng.pdf . The Jerusalem details are shown better at http://www.btselem.org/Images/Maps/Jerusalem_Fence_Eng.pdf . If it's not easy to change the map, I can do it. I suggest the "under construction" parts should be included so that it won't get out of date for a while. --Zero 08:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Curious:Do you know how to play Go?-戴&#30505sv 05:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No. Adam 10:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[8][edit]

This is brilliant. Would (will?) make good long term policy, later in the game. Jack 01:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I won't be able to complete the Conquest article. I'm fed up with this site and leaving it for good. But it's good enough as it is anyway. 172 10:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I cleaned up the last one on the second shot. Why does a George W. Bush exist and not a George H. W. Bush? What is the media thinking: [9]? --Jia ng 06:06, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just as it is probably apparent who "George Bush" refers to in that google link I provided, just turn on the news and listen to what "George Bush" refers to in speech. It's probably even more common. Only old people who have been living in a cave for at least the last 3 years believe "George Bush" refers to George Herbert Walker Bush. It is not wikipedia renaming people - it is the media and the people appearing on the media. We just follow them. --Jia ng 07:25, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Pnyx[edit]

Hi. Thank you for adding Pnyx in Images of Athens. Optim 11:00, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Naos tou Hephaestou[edit]

Nai, you are right:) As I write in the image description it is either Poseidon's Temple or Thission. Hephaestos Temple is generally known as thission IIRC (I am not so knowledgable about ancient monuments, although I live next to them). Since you also recognise it as Hephaestos' temple, it probably is. Another day when I will go again there I will have a better check. and Nai, simera nobody remembers this great temple :( Optim 11:27, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Theseion comes from Theseus: Θησείον - Θησέυς (Θησέας) (8hseion - 8hseus (8hseas)). Theseus died in Skyros. Kimon, following the advice of the Delphi oracle, transferred his bones at Athens. Then, his bones were placed in this temple, the "Theseion". Hence the name:) There is also a train station with the same name. Optim 11:56, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought the terms of classical architecture would be right down your alley. The photos of the Temple of Hephaestus are so clear and handsome, I linked to them from Doric order as well. Wish I knew how to post plates from the Encyclopedie for the architectural entries... Wetman 23:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

nice photo[edit]

nice photo! When did you take it? Note: It is not "Nao tou Dios Olympianou" but "Nao(s) tou Olympiou Dios" (Ναός του Ολυμπίου Διός) your articles on greek and archaeological topics are very nice! good work! :)

Also, you don't say "einai ego" but "eimai ego". The grammar is: ego eimai, esy eisai, autos/auti/auto einai, emeis eimaste, eseis eisaste, autoi/autes/auta einai. Do you learn Greek? I hope I will be able to help you if u need any help with the language, so don't hesitate to ask me whenever you have some question :) Optim 16:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aleksandr Lukashenko[edit]

Hi Adam,

Regarding your comment on Aleksandr Lukashenko that "this article needs to be completely rewritten", I've done so - please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks. :-) -- ChrisO 00:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edit bug?[edit]

Adam, can you confirm whether the edit bug mentioned on the pump is or is not still present? I cannot reproduce the bug and can't tell whether tweaks to the code have or have not had an effect on it. --Brion 02:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)