User talk:Brandmeister (old)/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brandmeister (old). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
AE
Please be aware of this: [1].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly aware, there is no breach. Stay cool. Brandt 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Sandstein 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)6 months topic ban
Brandmeister, for the reasons and under the authority specified in this AE post, you are topic-banned from all pages (including discussion pages) related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area (all broadly construed) for six months as of that post. If you violate this sanction, you may be made subject to lengthy blocks and/or additional sanctions. You may appeal this sanction, as well as the block imposed above, only as specified in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, subsection "Appeal of discretionary sanctions"; no administrator may unilaterally overturn it. Sandstein 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- "No administrator may unilaterally overturn it". Hmmm .... is Sandstein the new boss of Wikipedia? And who concocted this new AA2 brew (even more vile and putrid a drink than the old one)? And why? Meowy 18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll wait for the Ban Subcommittee's reply first. Brandt 19:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
1RR review
I would like to express a new concern regarding my 1RR restriction. Specifically, I would like this sanction to be reviewed and suspended because of the following:
- Sandstein jumped to a conclusion before waiting for the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/St. Hubert, which is still ongoing per recent reply.
- I am still waiting for the second e-mail from the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, whereupon the first reply from Kirill Lokshin states among others: "We have received your appeal, and will consider it" and "We have a target time of seven days from receipt of the information for handling appeals though they may take longer if the appeal is complex or we have to wait for responses". I e-mailed the relevant information on June 21.
Thank you. Brandt 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Insofar as it is directed at me as the sanctioning administrator, I am declining your appeal for the following reasons:
- Whether or not St. Hubert is a sockpuppet has no significance with respect to your edit warring for which I imposed the 1RR sanction on you. It is also prohibited to edit-war with sockpuppets.
- If your appeal to the Committee against the 1RR sanction remains pending, then that is not in itself a reason to make an additional appeal against the same sanction on this page.
- You may also appeal to WP:AE. If you wish to make such an appeal, you may use the {{helpme}} template to ask an editor to copy any statement you wish to make to that page. Sandstein 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I still disagree. First of all, as per WP:RV, the reverts of banned users are exceptions, so it is vital to wait for SPI to determine whether the reverts are justified or not. When the challenged report was filled, the SPI request has been already submitted. Five out of six diffs, provided in the report, point to St. Hubert and the reverts, as evidenced in history, were initiated by him (in the first diff provided I referenced the article, removing the 'unreferenced' tag). I suggest being more familiar with Iranian sockpuppeting.
- Secondly, because my appeal to the Committee remains pending, I question the legitimacy of both blocks, especially the most recent one. I am still dissatisfied with rationales as in my humble opinion they breach general good-faith principles: we are building encyclopedia primarily by editing and talking, not sanctioning. Brandt 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're simply citing policy after the fact here. You made absolutely no inclination that you were reverting a banned user. Furthermore, the result of the SPI does not excuse your own edit warring – if you suspected the other party was a sock of a banned user, you should have reported it to an administrator. Also, we only assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. I believe your history of edit warring goes to said evidence. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- The SPI request was submitted prior to 1RR report, as I wrote above, I think this is a violation of neutrality by an AA admin. Anyway, I'm not going to appeal for unblock this time as I am waiting until Jun 28 for Subcommittee's response, as specified. Brandt 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neutrality? How? As mentioned before, the SPI report does not excuse your own edit warring. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is promptly verifiable, Nishkid: SPI report date - June 12 2009, 05:30 (UTC), Fedayee's report date - 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC) and 1RR decision date - 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC). That is the closing decision was made more than a day after the SPI was submitted. Brandt 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why the date of the SPI matters. You still haven't answered my question: where do you see a violation of neutrality by an AA admin? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- You wrote above: if you suspected the other party was a sock of a banned user, you should have reported it to an administrator. St. Hubert was reported prior to 1RR decision, so why such a hurry for sanctioning? Brandt 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I meant on a noticeboard or on an admin talk page. A number of editors who participate in SPI case handling are non-administrators. None of the suspected sockmasters were banned previously, so I don't know why you believed you were reverting a banned user. In addition, I don't see any indication that you believed St. Hubert was a sockpuppet of a banned user prior to the AE report. In fact, St. Hubert was never accused by Grandmaster of being a sock until the SPI report; Grandmaster alleged that Kurdo777 was a sock of a banned user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Behmod's block log, he was ultimately indef-banned on Sept 12, 2007 and Grandmaster in the SPI request asked for a more swift response because of the pending issue. Brandt 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- He did not have a legitimate need for two accounts, so one of them was blocked. This by no means carried over to his other account ChateauLincoln. Therefore, he was not by any means a banned or indefblocked user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let the ongoing investigation determine whether St. Hubert is a sock or not. Brandt 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- He did not have a legitimate need for two accounts, so one of them was blocked. This by no means carried over to his other account ChateauLincoln. Therefore, he was not by any means a banned or indefblocked user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Behmod's block log, he was ultimately indef-banned on Sept 12, 2007 and Grandmaster in the SPI request asked for a more swift response because of the pending issue. Brandt 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I meant on a noticeboard or on an admin talk page. A number of editors who participate in SPI case handling are non-administrators. None of the suspected sockmasters were banned previously, so I don't know why you believed you were reverting a banned user. In addition, I don't see any indication that you believed St. Hubert was a sockpuppet of a banned user prior to the AE report. In fact, St. Hubert was never accused by Grandmaster of being a sock until the SPI report; Grandmaster alleged that Kurdo777 was a sock of a banned user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- You wrote above: if you suspected the other party was a sock of a banned user, you should have reported it to an administrator. St. Hubert was reported prior to 1RR decision, so why such a hurry for sanctioning? Brandt 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why the date of the SPI matters. You still haven't answered my question: where do you see a violation of neutrality by an AA admin? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is promptly verifiable, Nishkid: SPI report date - June 12 2009, 05:30 (UTC), Fedayee's report date - 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC) and 1RR decision date - 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC). That is the closing decision was made more than a day after the SPI was submitted. Brandt 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neutrality? How? As mentioned before, the SPI report does not excuse your own edit warring. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- The SPI request was submitted prior to 1RR report, as I wrote above, I think this is a violation of neutrality by an AA admin. Anyway, I'm not going to appeal for unblock this time as I am waiting until Jun 28 for Subcommittee's response, as specified. Brandt 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're simply citing policy after the fact here. You made absolutely no inclination that you were reverting a banned user. Furthermore, the result of the SPI does not excuse your own edit warring – if you suspected the other party was a sock of a banned user, you should have reported it to an administrator. Also, we only assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. I believe your history of edit warring goes to said evidence. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Secondly, because my appeal to the Committee remains pending, I question the legitimacy of both blocks, especially the most recent one. I am still dissatisfied with rationales as in my humble opinion they breach general good-faith principles: we are building encyclopedia primarily by editing and talking, not sanctioning. Brandt 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Здрасте. Не могли бы вы написать эту статью. Подобное было и здесь. Или вот этого человека. Я имею в виду написать в русскую википедию.
DYK nomination of Tahitians
Hello! Your submission of Tahitians at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
image
Посмотрите на ru:Файл:Ianvs.jpg в ру.вики - там проблемы с лицензионным статусом. Т.к. здесь шаблоны автопредупреждения не работают, написал сам лаконично Spectorman (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Tahitians
Thanks for the new page on the indigenous people of Tahiti. Please see Talk:Tahitians#Typo?. You are welcome to add the navbox for information on the indigenous culture of Oceania. Newportm (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Apollo
I don't read Russian. Is the cited link supportive of Apollo, or of the hoax theory? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed, I can translate any bunch if necessary. Brandt 09:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to know which way they swing, pro-Apollo or pro-hoax. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pro-Apollo, the red lines are the challenges and the rest is rebuttal. The photos are also addressed. Brandt 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would that source pass muster as a wikipedia "reliable source"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think yes (there are ten consultants listed at the bottom and references to English sources): http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm. A quick verifiability could be processed through Google page translator or any other. Brandt 10:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can we be sure it's not a wikipedia mirror site or some deal like that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, nothing such, it's Skeptik.net (Sceptic). Here is rough English version of the link: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skeptik.net%2Fconspir%2Fmoonhoax.htm&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Brandt 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- The main reason I was asking was to get the opinion of that one recent editor who uses a Cyrillic-alphabet name (I have no idea what the English transliteration would be). It turns out he's already familiar with that website, so it's a moot issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, nothing such, it's Skeptik.net (Sceptic). Here is rough English version of the link: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skeptik.net%2Fconspir%2Fmoonhoax.htm&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Brandt 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can we be sure it's not a wikipedia mirror site or some deal like that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think yes (there are ten consultants listed at the bottom and references to English sources): http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm. A quick verifiability could be processed through Google page translator or any other. Brandt 10:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would that source pass muster as a wikipedia "reliable source"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pro-Apollo, the red lines are the challenges and the rest is rebuttal. The photos are also addressed. Brandt 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to know which way they swing, pro-Apollo or pro-hoax. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
re
I noticed. I chose not to act out of a combination of fatigue with the subject, and wanting to see if the community could handle things without me stepping in. He's been warned about ArbAA2; I'll watch what goes from there. --Golbez (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Forever King.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Forever King.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Σxplicit 06:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
/Archive_8#c-Explicit-2009-08-28T06:52:00.000Z-Disputed_non-free_use_rationale_for_File:Forever_King.jpg){kind=link}
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Sexuality in music videos
|
On September 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sexuality in music videos, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Mariya Volkonskaya
Hello! Your submission of Mariya Volkonskaya at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Riddle me this....=
What is the best way to throw a ball, have it stop, and then completely reverse direction and come back to you? 92.8.246.55 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Mariya Volkonskaya
|
|
On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mariya Volkonskaya, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikiproject: Did you know? 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Semyon Trofimovich Bychkov
|
|
On September 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Semyon Trofimovich Bychkov, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
BorgQueen (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Переименование статей о персонажах Mortal Kombat в ру-вики
Мы уже однажды принимали по ним решение всем игровым проектом и таки приняли решение оставить их в латинице. Во-первых, потому, что нет официального перевода, а во-вторых, потому, что есть несколько вариантов имён - Лю Кенг (де-факто) и Лю Кан (правильная палладица), Кенши (де-факто) и Кэнси (правильное киридзи) и тэ дэ. Имена в латинице узнаваемы сторонниками каждого варианта, а вариантные имена - нет. Прошу вас переименовать их обратно. ru:Ari
- Я не призываю вас склонять имена в статьях, имея их написание в латинице. Можно делать так: Соня (English: Sonya) — вымышленный персонаж... У Сони есть... У Сони нет... И так далее. Но название статьи однозначно более узнаваемо в латинице, чем в кириллице, у которой есть несколько вариантов. Поэтому, собственно, и решили именовать латиницей — чтобы название статьи гарантированно узнали все. ru:Ari
- В Категории:Персонажи компьютерных игр и подкатегориях большинство имён - в транслитерации. У спорных вариантов есть наиболее распространеннные версии, к которым можно сделать редиректы (например, Саб-Зеро для Саб-Зиро). Кстати, если искать в Гугле Sub-Zero, то всплывут также холодильники и прочее, а если дать транслитерацию, то выйдет чистый Комбат. Brand[t] 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Стартовала азербайджанская неделя
Салам алейкум. Прошу Вас, как участника проекта, активно поучавствовать в ней! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Аду (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of List of Polish cities damaged in World War II
Hello! Your submission of List of Polish cities damaged in World War II at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:4086b.jpg
File:4086b.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Oil rocks Soviet stamp 4086b.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Oil rocks Soviet stamp 4086b.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
/Archive_8#c-Erwin85Bot-2009-10-07T21:14:00.000Z-NowCommons:_File:4086b.jpg){kind=link}
DYK for Coronation of Napoleon I
|
|
On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coronation of Napoleon I, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Kupala and Kostroma
Hello! Your submission of Kupala and Kostroma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for List of Polish cities damaged in World War II
|
|
On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Polish cities damaged in World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
SoWhy 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Kupala and Kostroma
|
|
On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kupala and Kostroma, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Pavel Svedomsky
|
|
On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pavel Svedomsky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks Victuallers (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Angel from The Song of Bethlehem.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Gigantomacy copyright problems
See Template talk:Did you know#Gigantomachy. Ucucha 12:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Creationist Evolution
Your proposition is the same as that explained by Natan Slifkin in his work The Challenge of Creation -- certainly the concept held by Judaism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Christian influences in Islam
|
|
On November 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christian influences in Islam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Giovanna Tornabuoni images
Please see my note at commons:User talk:Brandmeister#Giovanna Tornabuoni images. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Russian Empire-Full coat of arms.3.jpg, , gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Caspian blue 04:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Ghirlandaio-Giovanna Tornabuoni.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Caspian blue 05:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Orphaned non-free image File:Crucifixio.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Crucifixio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
/Archive_8#c-Skier_Dude-2009-12-12T06:43:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_File:Crucifixio.jpg){kind=link}
DYK for Samuel Drummond
|
|
On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Drummond, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
re Karabakhtsis
Considering only the summary has that word, and the edit itself specifies "Karabakh Armenians", I see no reason for complaint. --Golbez (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Specifies how? The Karabakh Armenians are not some distinctive ethnic group, unlike Catalonians, Provencals or Basques for example. Such notions are unencyclopedic at least and are used for obvious propaganda purposes and further claims. If that matter persists, a clear consensus should be achieved at talk first per guidelines. Brand[t] 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Armenians in Karabakh. It doesn't seem like a strange distinction to make. Which part is wrong, saying that they are of Armenian extraction, or that they were born and/or raised in Nagorno-Karabakh? --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are not of Armenian extraction, but Armenians per se, the acknowledged theory holds that even the word Karabakh is non-Armenian. This is not the case of self-determination because Armenians are already self-determined in Armenia. Or we should add info about Karabakh Azeris for equal representation. Brand[t] 07:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to. I personally see no problem whatosever with the phrase "Karabakh Armenians", except I guess what you're saying is it should just say "people from Karabakh" and not specify Armenians? --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we could alter in such a way and include Azeris alongside of Armenians, born in NK. Brand[t] 17:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to. I personally see no problem whatosever with the phrase "Karabakh Armenians", except I guess what you're saying is it should just say "people from Karabakh" and not specify Armenians? --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are not of Armenian extraction, but Armenians per se, the acknowledged theory holds that even the word Karabakh is non-Armenian. This is not the case of self-determination because Armenians are already self-determined in Armenia. Or we should add info about Karabakh Azeris for equal representation. Brand[t] 07:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Armenians in Karabakh. It doesn't seem like a strange distinction to make. Which part is wrong, saying that they are of Armenian extraction, or that they were born and/or raised in Nagorno-Karabakh? --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend, and a productive 2010. - Darwinek (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Re Cheers
Thanks. All the best to you as well. --jjron (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Yardymli meteorite
Hello! Your submission of Yardymli meteorite at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Brandmeister! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 198 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Jagna Marczułajtis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Togrul Narimanbekov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Vladimir Sergeyevich Mikhaylov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Q about Greco-Persian wars
Are you sure "Warfare in the Classical World" by John Warry refers to whole Greco-Persian wars, or just to 499/490/480-479 period (like Encarta does)? I've tried to find something about it on preview googlebooks and amazon but without success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.159.24 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should ask GK1973, who added that, but the Greek victory is a general scholar consensus, not something from Warry. Brand[t] 20:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So that's it; he's from Greece, so it's obviously one-side act. Greek victory is general consensus just for Second Persian invasion of Greece, not for whole war - I wrote it few times but that guy can't accept it. Please read what Britannica says (last chapter):
- Although the Persian invasion was ended by the battles at Plataea and Mycale, fighting between Greece and Persia continued for another 30 years. Led by the Athenians, the newly formed Delian League went on the offensive to free the Ionian city-states on the Anatolian coast. The league had mixed success, and in 449 bc the Peace of Callias finally ended the hostilities between Athens and its allies and Persia. LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.159.24 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please participate in this discussion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I strongly doubt that most of readers wondering what NLO means expect to read about some obscure russian magazine. Consequently, in virtue of the principle of least astonishment, I rename NLO to NLO (Russian magazine) and ask to an admin to rename NLO (disambiguation) to NLO. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind. Brand[t] 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of John Gridunov
Hello! Your submission of John Gridunov at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK medal
{{subst:The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}|Thanks for all of your contributions to DYK! I haven't run into you myself at T:TDYK, but I noticed you at WP:DYKLIST and thought you deserved this. Arctic Night 14:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}}
Greco-Persian Wars
You might be interested in the fact that I have requested for comment in the said article per request of admin Ged UK. You are welcome to comment since you are the one who reintroduced the problem of this war's outcome as presented in the infobox. GK1973 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I redirected your article, since the term is also used in economy. -RobertMel (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Weak dematerialization
|
|
On March 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Weak dematerialization, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cirt (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion thread from WP:FTN continues here
There is a section on dating controversy: Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin#Criticisms. I urge to be more careful with marking such issues as ‘pseudoscience’ because both sides, the proponents and detractors, use science to substantiate their tenets. But the latter hold numerous contradicting theories while the proponents of authenticity stick to one, the Resurrection. To effectively challenge the hypotheses on Resurrection skeptics should gather enough references to substantiate a particular theory against authenticity. It would be interesting what happens then. So far not a single scientific publication debunking the theory of dematerialization has been given by Barvinok or Fama Clamosa at talk, the only actual argument is based on “I’m sure such things do not happen in nature”. I have just replaced Lulu.com with corresponding reliable refs. At the same time, because of their relevance, I think Bible quotes and especially those from the New Testament could be used as long as their authenticity is generally undisputed, like some of the Pauline letters. Brand[t] 08:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you just had once again demonstrated the failure to understand how science works. First, the number of theories do no matter. Verifiable facts do. Resurrection proponents have none. Second, there's no need to "challenge" the Resurrection, as the scientific consensus is against it. Because of it, the proponents (not "detractors") have to gather evidence and so forth and present it to the scientific community for thorough analysis. So far no evidence, direct or indirect, was given. Bible quotes can not be used in scientific arguments, because the Bible is not a reliable source. The Bible is a literary account of historic (even by the time of its first writing) events, with disputed authorship (to the matter that the author's very existence can not be proven by other sources), very large number of internal contradictions, exaggerations, mutually exclusive statements etc. Please, re-read the article burden of proof before challenging anyone else to disprove any crazy theories for the tenth time over and over again. --Barvinok (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just browsed a request for arbitration on pseudoscience and it looks Trenn's hypothesis is an alternative theoretical formulation, not a fringe theory. Firstly, from your empirical verifiability stance the premise that corpses do not dematerialize is just an a priori observation since not every corpse, especially that of Jesus, has been tested to confirm that throughout history (similar situation existed before the discovery of relativity theory when people thought in terms of Newtonian physics). The scientific consensus appears to be against the resurrection in general, not that of Jesus. Because if the Resurrection were just a feeble dogma, numerous skeptics throughout 2,000 years of Christianity should have dismantled it at some point, effectively ruining the Christianity. But that did not happen. The aforementioned First Epistle to the Corinthians in particular mentions a considerable amount of Resurrection witnesses, who were still living at the time of the writing, including Paul himself, whose historicity is unquestioned. Brand[t] 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- No corpse had been demonstrably dematerialized, and each and every corpse ever analyzed did not dematerialize. So, this is not a priori, as evidence for the point does exist, hence — a posteriori, or empiric. From scientific point of view Jesus is no different from any other human being, hence the "general consensus" apply to him as well. For the "Paul" argument you had just once again stepped in the same pit of the same logical fallacy — you assume that Jesus indeed resurrected and was able to manifest itself to Paul. Without concrete proof of this basic premise (and there is none yet), every consequence is speculative, let alone scientific. Once again, Bible can not be taken as serious reliable source for the reasons aforementioned. -- Barvinok (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should reread both the WD itself and additional references provided at its talk before boldly stating that there is “no evidence, direct or indirect”. I dropped you a link for “Results of a Probabilistic Model Applied to the Research Carried Out on the Turin Shroud”, but for obscure reasons you called it unscientific, “written by, say, "shroud supporters", whoever they might be with any sound names”. A detailed analysis of probability to figure out the odds in this case is vital and has been provided, yet you cherrypick, asserting that all shroud supporters hold no water. There are numerous examples in the history of science when the theorized events seemed initially miraculous, but were finally proven. To clarify the antecedent issue: given that Jesus’ historicity is not disputed now, was he empirically tested for resurrection inability, peculiar to ordinary people? No, primarily because there were no appropriate methods at that time. As such plainly stating that Jesus as a human being was incapable to resurrect is unscientific, skeptics should present a sound rationale on his whereabouts after the death, invalidating the common notion. That would be a grandiose breakthrough in history, but so far I found nothing of that kind. Instead you are manifesting an unhistoric approach, which is fringe at best, challenging the authorship of the 1st Corinthians. E.P. Sanders for example, present in some relevant articles, confirms: "It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud" and marks his further plot notion as probable. As I suspect, you have an explanation on image formation other than the Resurrection process, so I am eager to see it. Brand[t] 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is horrible :(. Forget about shroud, Jesus, resurrection and so on. Forget everything! Let's try to learn basics of logical thinking. If you are trying to be scientific about some issue, the "common notion" is not an arbitrary statement from one of many dogmatic religions, but scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is that people do not resurrect. This is skeptic position, by definition. Therefore, any hypothesis to the contrary should be proven first. Not vice versa. Do you understand? Please refrain from citing sources, Gospels and so on, just answer my question. Thanks. -- Barvinok (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, people do not resurrect. But Jesus did, otherwise Christianity would have probably never emerge. Nonetheless it does not disrupt the scientific consensus. My question: where are Jesus' bones now? Every human being leaves a long-lasting evidence after the death. Btw, I have checked pseudoscience and scientific method too and don’t believe WD falls within their criteria. From what I see, there are characterization, hypothesis, prediction and experiment (neutron irradiation). Brand[t] 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- There were many billions of humans, whose bones can not now be found after their death. Did they all resurrect? If not, what SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE do you have that Jesus was any different from all these billions? You don't. Christianity is an opinion. Shroud is hardly a circumstantial evidence if authentic, not direct, verifiable and provable fact. I say again and again, if you want to be scientific, you must follow certain strict rules. Merely declaring something as science wouldn't do the trick. -- Barvinok (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- In case of Jesus you should present a reliable evidence that he was a human too, not merely stating it. But I do not have a scientific evidence since, given the development level of physics, there were no relevant scientific methods to duly test Jesus' properties at that time. The only available proof methods were the eyewitness testimonies, reflected in numerous sources, including the 1st Corinthians. Note, that doubting Thomas, Thomas the Apostle was a historical figure with defined life span AND was alive when Paul was writing his epistles. Brand[t] 09:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, the very historicity of Jesus is still a subject of much debate. Obviously, Christian sources, including Bible, are all naturally biased in the matter of the central figure of dogmatic doctrine. Moreover, the Bible albeit initially a collection of mutually contradictory eyewitness testimonies, underwent several centuries of deliberate edits, omissions, inclusions, distortions, independent secondary and tertiary translations and versioning, all done for the sake of then-current church ideology. There is also well-established tradition of selective interpretation of Bible, concerning which parts are to be taken literally and which other parts symbolically. In fact, Bible was deliberately composed in such a way as to carry the message of Jesus existence, omitting everything that contradicts it. Again, matter of personal opinion of the authoritative leaders, not even nearly scientific analysis. This completely invalidates Bible's reliability as a source. What can be inferred from non-Christian sources is merely the likely existence of some figure, who was later (long after his death) deemed fit as a foundation for Christianity by the leaders of the emerging split cult. The humanly natural or divinely supernatural nature of Jesus thus can not be definitively established by strict scientific methods. But I'd like to remind you, that theories concerning Jesus a purely imaginative figure do exist, namely Christ myth theory or Jesus Christ in comparative mythology.
- But let's assume he did exist. Of course I do not have evidence that he was human. Likewise, you do not have evidence that he was not human. Here comes the split in the ways of thinking. Scientist mind tries to avoid explaining unknown by another unknown, as it does not actually explain anything by practically useful means. Believer mind will explain unknown by divine, providing comfortable knowledge substitute that helps gain self-confidence of attaining sacred knowledge. This is why I demand proofs of his divinity to possibly exploit such phenomenon in further practice and you demand proofs of his non-divinity because it hurts your faith and feelings and makes you uncomfortable. -- Barvinok (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- In case of Jesus you should present a reliable evidence that he was a human too, not merely stating it. But I do not have a scientific evidence since, given the development level of physics, there were no relevant scientific methods to duly test Jesus' properties at that time. The only available proof methods were the eyewitness testimonies, reflected in numerous sources, including the 1st Corinthians. Note, that doubting Thomas, Thomas the Apostle was a historical figure with defined life span AND was alive when Paul was writing his epistles. Brand[t] 09:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- There were many billions of humans, whose bones can not now be found after their death. Did they all resurrect? If not, what SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE do you have that Jesus was any different from all these billions? You don't. Christianity is an opinion. Shroud is hardly a circumstantial evidence if authentic, not direct, verifiable and provable fact. I say again and again, if you want to be scientific, you must follow certain strict rules. Merely declaring something as science wouldn't do the trick. -- Barvinok (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, people do not resurrect. But Jesus did, otherwise Christianity would have probably never emerge. Nonetheless it does not disrupt the scientific consensus. My question: where are Jesus' bones now? Every human being leaves a long-lasting evidence after the death. Btw, I have checked pseudoscience and scientific method too and don’t believe WD falls within their criteria. From what I see, there are characterization, hypothesis, prediction and experiment (neutron irradiation). Brand[t] 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is horrible :(. Forget about shroud, Jesus, resurrection and so on. Forget everything! Let's try to learn basics of logical thinking. If you are trying to be scientific about some issue, the "common notion" is not an arbitrary statement from one of many dogmatic religions, but scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is that people do not resurrect. This is skeptic position, by definition. Therefore, any hypothesis to the contrary should be proven first. Not vice versa. Do you understand? Please refrain from citing sources, Gospels and so on, just answer my question. Thanks. -- Barvinok (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should reread both the WD itself and additional references provided at its talk before boldly stating that there is “no evidence, direct or indirect”. I dropped you a link for “Results of a Probabilistic Model Applied to the Research Carried Out on the Turin Shroud”, but for obscure reasons you called it unscientific, “written by, say, "shroud supporters", whoever they might be with any sound names”. A detailed analysis of probability to figure out the odds in this case is vital and has been provided, yet you cherrypick, asserting that all shroud supporters hold no water. There are numerous examples in the history of science when the theorized events seemed initially miraculous, but were finally proven. To clarify the antecedent issue: given that Jesus’ historicity is not disputed now, was he empirically tested for resurrection inability, peculiar to ordinary people? No, primarily because there were no appropriate methods at that time. As such plainly stating that Jesus as a human being was incapable to resurrect is unscientific, skeptics should present a sound rationale on his whereabouts after the death, invalidating the common notion. That would be a grandiose breakthrough in history, but so far I found nothing of that kind. Instead you are manifesting an unhistoric approach, which is fringe at best, challenging the authorship of the 1st Corinthians. E.P. Sanders for example, present in some relevant articles, confirms: "It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud" and marks his further plot notion as probable. As I suspect, you have an explanation on image formation other than the Resurrection process, so I am eager to see it. Brand[t] 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- No corpse had been demonstrably dematerialized, and each and every corpse ever analyzed did not dematerialize. So, this is not a priori, as evidence for the point does exist, hence — a posteriori, or empiric. From scientific point of view Jesus is no different from any other human being, hence the "general consensus" apply to him as well. For the "Paul" argument you had just once again stepped in the same pit of the same logical fallacy — you assume that Jesus indeed resurrected and was able to manifest itself to Paul. Without concrete proof of this basic premise (and there is none yet), every consequence is speculative, let alone scientific. Once again, Bible can not be taken as serious reliable source for the reasons aforementioned. -- Barvinok (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just browsed a request for arbitration on pseudoscience and it looks Trenn's hypothesis is an alternative theoretical formulation, not a fringe theory. Firstly, from your empirical verifiability stance the premise that corpses do not dematerialize is just an a priori observation since not every corpse, especially that of Jesus, has been tested to confirm that throughout history (similar situation existed before the discovery of relativity theory when people thought in terms of Newtonian physics). The scientific consensus appears to be against the resurrection in general, not that of Jesus. Because if the Resurrection were just a feeble dogma, numerous skeptics throughout 2,000 years of Christianity should have dismantled it at some point, effectively ruining the Christianity. But that did not happen. The aforementioned First Epistle to the Corinthians in particular mentions a considerable amount of Resurrection witnesses, who were still living at the time of the writing, including Paul himself, whose historicity is unquestioned. Brand[t] 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)