User talk:Erik the Red 2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

linguist Alexander Kondatrov

Just to let you know I've removed this from Location Hypothesis of Atlantis. Not only is he a linguist and this was a claim about geology, he's wrong - the area has been explored, deep plains and a few sea mounts. I did ask a geologist before removing it and can give you chapter and verse with references if you want.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin

Hola,

Do you actually speak latin? I'd like a confirmation of my translation of juridicum here. Can you help? WLU (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually speak latin. That's the COOLEST!!! I wish I spoke latin.

So does 'day without law' make sense or would it be better translated as 'day without judiciary'? Thanks for your help by the way, nothing better than a good response to an obscure question : ) WLU (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} I logged into my account and I realized that all of the Twinkle/Friendly buttons that I normally use were gone. They were still installed on my monobook.js file and their boxes were checked in my preferences page. I refreshed the page and they still weren't there. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Try clearing your browsers cache. Please also note the Twinkle/Friendly don't work on IE Alexfusco⁵ 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't IPs edit his user page?

He invites good faith edits, as he makes explicit right on the page. Since your reversion's edit summary called my edit 'good faith', I'm not sure I understand what you're concerned about and ask you to restore my edit. 24.146.21.98 (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's his user page; I simply don't understand why that's relevant. He invites good faith edits to his user page, with no qualifications that those edits not be made by IPs. You say there have been numerous discussions about this issue somewhere. If so, I am unaware of them, and the only link you provided me with was a link to the history of his user page. I haven't gone through all the edits to find out, but that seems to be an unlikely place for a discussion of any sort to occur. I do not wish to get into a revert war, so unless you can provide me with something more substantial to indicate that my edit is not welcome, I again ask that you restore my edit. It was factual, provided clarification, and contained appropriate wiki-syntax, which is exactly the type of edit that improves pages. 24.146.21.98 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Erik the Red 2/Archive 2, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Bewareofdog 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editing links, now I can get rid of all these post-it notes. Where do you get the banners that say you're into renewable energy and Sherlock Holmes? Clicking on them takes me to the topics, not the page to get them from. CometHawk (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalislisilisilism=

Gee, Thanks! ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Erik the Red 2. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history project

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Erik the Red 2 - Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! -Classicfilms (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Erik, questioning the neutrality of an article is fine, and even encouraged, but it should be done on the talk page. Adding "disputed" templates to articles we don't like or don't agree with, is defacing the encyclopedia, since virtually every article has some disputes. If each disputed article had a template like that, this would degrade the appearance of the site, without improving its quality. If you don't like something, keep complaining and discussing on the talk page. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you — the NPOV template is much abused, and rarely if ever useful. Just think about it: if people followed your example, then virtually every article with any amount of controversy, which is likely the majority of all articles here, would be saying that this article is not neutral and is disputed. It is far more logical and helpful to discuss and debate issues on the talk page, and to try to reach consensus there. Crum375 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: old account

Ahh ok, thanks. Ironholds 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to make your opinions known, i'll be trying to enact a lot of the changes people have mentioned. And also a quick thanks for not getting involved in the entire userbox thing, although i am thinking of removing it in the end anyway since i'd rather have my next RfA decided entirely on merit rather than partially on "burn him! burn the heretic!". Ironholds 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for your input. The edit I made regarding the editor who didn't know what they were doing was a vandalistic edit. He edited many articles on that same day very quickly and all removing essential information. I reverted almost all of his edits due to that. I believe it was a computer that made those edits, or someone with very quick hands. WP: Airlines has a very good layout to follow and I've been one to promote it since I've been a member of the project. I just wanted to clear that up with you. Thanks though for your thoughts. I'm overwhelmed about the amount of commentary I've been receiving... all appreciated of course.--Golich17 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I wanted you to know that I reply on my talkpage so look there for my responce.Gears Of War 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Template 'Secret Page'

Hi, I was wondering whether you have a use for {{Erik's fun/User talk:Erik the Red 2}}. Such pages should really belong in Userspace, not Template space, which is for global (Wikipedia-wide) templates. If you like I can move it to your userspace, or if you have no further use for it then just tag it with {{db-g7}} and it will be deleted. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for my barnstar, for "all-around improvements to classical-themed articles." It makes a difference to be noticed in such a positive way. --Wetman (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Beowulf

I don't disagree with your decision to revert those edits, but your edit summary is the first suggestion I've ever heard that the story of Beowulf is set in the 9th century. The earliest audience for the version of the story we have today was probably during the 9th century, but the story is probably in or around the 6th century, as the anonymous editor suggested. Dppowell (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Though Norse sagas and other documents date Hygelac and Beowulf to the 6th century, the Danes in Beowulf are clearly Christian, and there is not much evidence that the Danish royalty and populace were Christian in the 6th century, indeed documents say the the Danish king Guthram was a pagan until converted by Alfred the Great in the mid 9th century. Other minor technologies also give us a 6th-century world with 6th-century characters with 9th-century ideas and minor technologies. This gives us a dilemma in wording. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter, or if you disagree with my reasoning. Thanks, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not a specialist on Beowulf, but a common conventional explanation for the Christian overlay (and it does have a somewhat tacked-on feel to it) is its addition by Christian transcriptionists who were adapting the story from an oral, pre-Christian tradition. The debate over when Christian elements began entering the story and when Beowulf was first transcribed from its oral form is still going on...scholars have been deconstructing Beowulf for clues to these questions for years. Dppowell (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Userboxen

Haha, thanks. I actually removed it myself to calm people the heck down, even though i'm not sure i'll run for admin again. Ironholds 22:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Olfactory RfA

Regarding your comment here: Look, I agree that Gazimoff's but especially ChaoticReality's ("drama fest") comments were not useful in that they didn't pertain to that particular oppose and that particular RfA. I was considering moving their posts to the talk page, but didn't do it in the hope nobody would reply. If you find it in you, I'd like to ask you to try and be the better man on such occasions. Kurt can perfectly handle it by himself, and those weren't any personal attacks or gross incivilites. Alleging that "It's only a drama fest if you start the drama by commenting on the oppose" however is thoroughly invalid in content and form and I'd definitely appreciate it if you wouldn't turn up the heat and turn down the light with such a remark. Anyone is absolutely welcome to comment on other's comments and reasonings, that's why it's called a discussion (and not an exchange of opinions). It's the meta-bickering on all sides that causes disruption — and with comments such as this one, you are just as guilty of that as anyone who comments in a way that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the RfA. user:Everyme 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am commenting on other's comments, and I think I make a valid point. If no one commented on Kurt's opposes, there would not be a huge discussion and therefore no chance for drama. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You and people like you are creating and indeed celebrating the drama by including meta-commentary that has no place in those discussions. Please do not comment again to the effect of challenging others' right to freely comment on other comments as pertains to the particular discussion, because, contrary to what you appear to believe, your comments do not pertain to the discussion. If you take issue with the way another user comments, preferably contact them at their user talk page, like I did here. Thank you. user:Everyme 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on RfA

Dear Erik,

I was wondering if you could explain to me what you mean with your comment on my RfA. I know it's frowned upon by some to comment on people who oppose, but I couldn't help but wondering if you hadn't misunderstood me, in which case I'd like to clarify.

You quote me as saying "a minimal amount of civility is needed". Of course I literally mean that a maximal amount is needed. I believe that everyone should think very carefully about what they say, and not rush into comments or bluntness which others might interpret as insults because of the online and not face-to-face communication. If you understood this differently, I think this might be because I'm not a native Anglophone (the 'minimal' is probably influenced by my native tongue, which is Dutch).

Second, you say I dodge Kurt's question, which I can understand because, in retrospect, that was not my most brilliant formulation to say "no". Yet on the other hand, you say I don't let another admin handle the unblock request, but I clearly said that "Of course it would be preferable for other admins to review the block, to get a second opinion." By second opinion, I don't mean 'after I've denied the unblock request', I mean 'after I have blocked, let someone else decide if unblocking is the right thing to do'.

I hope I'm making a bit more sense to you now!

all the best,

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You should say what you literally mean at all times because, as you say, there is no face-to-face communication on wikipedia. Second, if the main point you wanted to make under Xeno's question was that you'd let another admin review the request, you should have said that and not that you'd deny the unblock request. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My main point was what I myself would think about the validity of that specific unblock request, but as a secondary point I mentioned that I would leave it up to another admin as a second opinion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-heterosexuals article rewritten

Hi, I've rewritten Non-heterosexuals and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you! Banjeboi 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates

Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:24.18.4.115

Hi and thanks for the wiki-welcome. This is me when I am not logged in. Hard for me to tell if I am when I am mobile editing. I will try to do better! ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, Erik the Red 2!

My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! I thank you for your input and thoughts. I value them greatly, but I hope I can do a decent enough job in spite of your concerns. However, since I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, if you see me do anything terribly wrong, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Thanks again. Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might wait a while for the really fun stuff. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletions from Shakespeare authorship

I noticed you cleaned up the lead section (a nice attempt, by the way), but in doing so deleted a lot of information, much of which was properly sourced (I know because I provided some of the references). The template you were responding to asks to move the extra information from the lead into the body of the article. It appears you have simply deleted material instead. I don't want to assume anything, so perhaps you were not done yet and are planning to move the information into the article body. Is that your plan? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder (I was planning on doing it anyways, but got sidetracked- stupid Real Life :)!) I didn't move all the deleted content because some seemed rather redundant with existing material. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack accusation

Isn't the accusation of an attack itself an attack?! After all, how do you know I'm not being humorous? The Vikings invaded my country years ago, but I'll forgive them for that, and I'll forgive you for your accusation. Felsommerfeld (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very kind words at the RfA. It looks like adminship is not gonna be for me, but I'll be a Wikipedian 'til I die, so we'll definitely be working together in the future. Cheers! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome. :) Still learning but I think I'm doing pretty good.--Rrand (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of speedy tag on James C. Bates

You have removed a speedy deletion tag from James C. Bates, an article which serves no purpose but to promote its creator. It, along with articles spelled slightly differently, has already been deleted on those grounds several times. I have restored the speedy tag, and I would ask you to explain on the article's discussion page why you think it should not be speedy-deleted before you remove it again. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your review here

 Done You have been reviewed. (Muhuahahahaha!)just adds the drama don't you think? H2H (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shadow ArbCom

Just an update on the SAC. I set up a page for all news and updates at User:Mr. IP/Shadow ArbCom. We'll soon be taking on the stalled C68-FM-SV case soon (at the proposed decision talkpage for the case itself), as the real ArbCom seems unwilling to deal w/ it :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't mind that you voted Neutral in the RfA. The important thing is that you gave your honest opinion, and you obviously gave it a lot of thought. I really appreciate that, and I'll try not to disappoint the community. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Erik the Red 2/Archive 2, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Gosh darn it

ETR, I can sense your frustration, but you might want to express your latest post on Talk:Barack Obama a little differently - the "some people" part is uncomfortably close to a criticism of Noroton's editing habits - which from experience will lead to an alarmed reaction. And using the deity as part of a curse might be offensive to some (at least one person on these pages is a Fundamentalist Christian) and seems a little angry.... Venting can be useful but when you're done you may want to self-censor, lest too many get incited to follow suit. Wikidemo (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Case Against God

I read the book The Case Against God by George Smith over twenty years ago, it is now available online for a free download. Check it out. [1]--Woogie10w (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned in an Obama incident report

HereTalk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton - courtesy notice. - Wikidemo (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

JamieS93's RfA

Two words: awesome oppose. 'nuff said. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Christianity

"How Ironic, actually..." Your own comment on my talk page is little short of a personal attack itself. I suggest we keep it to the relevant talk page. Gabr-el 00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the last thing I want to be known for is being intolerant. Therefore, I apologize if I insulted you. I sincerely do. I do not rule out a compromise, but at the moment I stand my ground. Gabr-el 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Words like :ignorant, desperate and so on aren't nice. I never attacked you, nor did I attack atheism. I called Stalin and Mao Ze Dung fools and atheists. I never said that atheists are fools. Gabr-el 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame that you left the discussion. What I don't understand is your frustration. You seem to be under the impression that I do not believe persecutions by Christians have ever existed. To quote, you called this "ridiculous". You probably were not paying attention to what I am saying or anyone else. If you had, you would realize how baseless your anger in your language is. You don't need to prove to us that persecutions in the name of Christ have occurred. Believe it or not, I am very intelligent in history, despite the fact that I am a Christian (there is a bias out there that Christians are more stupid than Atheists - I bias I sense when you use the Moon denial example). But why do you speak in such terms? Is it not you who warned me of personal attacks? My point is that persecutions done by Christians is not relevant to the Christianity article. It is relevant to other articles. My point is that persecution of Christianity is more relevant, but no need for specifics, because martyrdom is one of the central themes of Christianity. My point WAS NOT the denial of persecutions, at any time. I am against historical revisionism - my own people have suffered historical revisionism in that they are denied by many Arabs we even exist - Assyrians, for example.

You have accused me of attacking your religion, when I did not. You have called my views ironic, desperate, ignorant, ridiculous. Tell me, I wonder, do you suppose, that there is a slight chance that you could cease your personal attacks? If not, it is best that you do leave that section of the Christianity talk page. Gabr-el 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your apology is awesome and accepted with gratitude. I look forward to editting with you too. Thanks for the compliment; your username is awesome too. Hail to the Roman Empire. A smaller hail to the Byzantine Empire which did not do as well but lasted longer. Gabr-el 05:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

ROFL :D :D :D

Ha ha haaa!!! That was awesome! Thanks for the revert, btw. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

a little unnecessary

[2] I'd appreciate an effort on your part to participate more constructively in RfA discussions. My comment is a fully justified reminder for other users' convenience of who is asking for "forgiveness" there. What was the point of your comment? Just piss me off, or was there something else to read between the lines? user:Everyme 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Desysoping and being a deletionist are two very different things. Opposing someone for being a radical deletionist is one thing, as deletionism is their current WikiPhilosophy. But a desysoping is something that happened way back when, when the candidate has had time to change. Whether the candidate at hand did is another matter all together, but it is still important to give them the benefit of the doubt. Le Grande is not "holding a grudge" at someone for voting delete, but rather voting against a deletionist. But many of the opposers in this case might indeed be holding a grudge against Everyking for his past "crimes". I just thought it was a little unnecessary to in effect call Le Grande a hypocrite, seeing that in my view, his opposes are not grudge-holding. But you may have different views on his votes than I do, and I don't want to shove my thoughts into your head. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Placement

Hey - I don't want to move your comment on my RFA (that might look suspicious - I don't want you or someone else to think I'm changing what you said :) ) - but you might want to consider moving it - it looks like you placed it under the wrong comment (your second comment, not your first).--danielfolsom 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

I believe that my contribution to the Barack Obama articles (his biography and the article on his image) are valid and should not have been reverted. My contribution cited verifiable events and cited reliable sources. Opinions in my contributions were the opinions of others and were cited. In addition, criticism and praise are valid contributions in a living person's biography on Wikipedia. [3]

--Amwestover (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral, and for your message of congratulations. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish War losses

If you are interested in the details of Polish losses in WW2 let me know. On Wikipedia I can only post data with sources. You can add and subtract the numbers yourself.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have Excel or Lotus 123?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have Excel, but for for Mac- is that a problem? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK Open A new spreadsheet and drop in the numbers, when we are finished there will be only 10 lines and 5 columns on the spreadsheet that all backed up with sources. This will demystify Polish losses, you will realize how freeking simple the reconciliation of this mess is.

Please check out Historical demography of Poland#Second World War (1939-1945)for the finished product. I would appreciate your comments.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the ethnic Polish births during the war were 1.2 million(5% of the 1939 population). In 1943 the Polish birth rate was 1.9%, in Germany the 1943 birth rate was 1.6%! Does not seem like genocide to me.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

For your information my addition to Barack Obama was neutral and well sourced. For the future please discuss on Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties which I head.Thanks, I am a vadal fighter myself! --Megapen (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Politico.com .--Megapen (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I report re. Weathermen / terrorists

An AN/I report has been started here concerning the WP:TERRORIST dispute at Weatherman (organization) and the events described at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Scjessey and Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton. This is a courtesy notice that you and/or matters in which you participated on one of these pages, are at issue in the AN/I report. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece August 2008 newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandlesim

Please don't vandlelize articles such as the Barrack Obama article you vandeilzed. Marshall T. Williams 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Erik, I'm posting here so the issue does not become cluttered. Now, you need, first of all, to look into the issue before firing off remarks at AN/I. Blatantly you posted there without looking into the matter at hand, so if other people appear to react to you in an "uncivil" way then that is probably your problem rather than anybody else's. My advice to you as an "ANI watcher" - read why the matter has been brought there before commenting. Happy editing, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read why the matter was brought to ANI, I have looked over both Rjecina's and your contribs, and I am not denying that Rjecina is to blame. I am merely saying that even though she has demonstrated violations of NPOV in her edits, she is still entitled to the same civility that every Wikipedia editor, registered and anon, is entitled to. She has not been any less uncivil than you have, and has not pushed her POV any further than you have. I take my work at Wikipedia seriously. Do you? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, my contribs are irrelevant. They play no part in this story whatsoever. The missives passed between Kirker and Rjecina are the issue here. You really have not focussed your attention entirely on the matter in hand. So with your "I take my work at Wikipedia seriously. Do you?" you have clearly made a bit of a twat of yourself. Ah well. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit, after all. Anyway, let's try, if we can, to focus on the matter in hand... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comment from admin noticeboard, it is from two different places, it is not by mistake« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender question

Are you sure Rjecina is female? My assumption, which has been maintained without challenge in my interaction with Rjecina over many months, is that Rjecina is male. But I'm basing that only on the name, which I have never heard applied to a female. But perhaps it makes no difference. I'm sure you will defend Rjecina just as gallantly whatever his or her gender. :-) Kirker (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A slip. I'm not defending her, actually, I advocated to block him and Aladasiar, as well as you, for 24 hours each. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Related question: what are the limits?

I've just noticed your argument that Rjecina should be treated with civility. I assume from your interference that you have some sort of authority at Wikipedia.

Do you have anything to say about Rjecina's own recent behaviour? For instance, Rjecina removed a substantial contribution of mine from a talk page. (Someone else put it back.) Rjecina accused me of being a sockpuppet, but refused to have that checked on the basis that he had already undermined his credibility too much with his idiotic referrals. On my talk page he actually offered to gather evidence of my sockpuppetry in order that a referral could be generated in someone else's name, LOL.

Rjecina has questioned my integrity on various occasions, most recently by asserting that my parents are from Yugoslavia (an obvious attempt to imply that I don't have a disinterested perspective). More than that, he has said that if I deny it (I do), he will not trust my response. Now (in the discussion you entered) Rjecina accuses me of "meatpuppetry," whatever that is. I would never stoop to complaining about such a pathetic contributor, but does any of his behaviour qualify as "incivility"?

If you want a good example of Rjecina's worth to Wikipedia, you might take look at the article on Miroslav Filipović which until a month ago was woeful, POV-driven utter crap, and which had spawned inordinate wrangling on the talk page. It stopped being drivel the day I threw the whole lot away (except for its two references) and replaced it with a comprehensive, encyclopaedic entry supported by 20-odd references. Rjecina hates it of course and has tried to undermine it on the most puerile grounds (don't take my word, it's all there on the talk page) but he can't do a thing about it because it is self-evidently non-POV, and thoroughly referenced all the way through.

If I was you I would stop indulging in your nauseating game of happy families and back off any time you see disinterested parties trying to bring Balkans articles up to the standard established elsewhere in Wikipedia. Our task is hard enough as it is. Kirker (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, let me explain myself. I disagree strongly with Rjecina. I believe him to be in the wrong, and you in the right. And yet, even though his edits are puerile and against policy, he still must be treated with civility. The vice versa also applies: even though you are an outstanding contributor, whose edits are always balanced, well-sourced, etc, you still have to treat other editors with civility, even those who are lesser editors than yourself. I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill here. You are unblocked, and you should continue to make the Balkans articles the best they can be. If Rjecina continues to violate NPOV, revert and warn him, but treat him with civility. After four warnings, report Rjecina to ANI, and he will be blocked briefly for repeated NPOV violations. If Rjecina treats you with incivility, do not reciprocate, but do the same procedure, warn for personal attacks, after four warnings, report to ANI and he will be blocked for repeated personal attacks. I hope this helps, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Unfortunately I have no time for all the "be nice" and "assume good faith" stuff. I've tried being nice to Rjecina, offered help, etc but there is no good faith there so I will no longer pretend that there is. If the truth continues to make Rjecina squeal, I will soon be banned for keeps, while he and his ilk continue to besmirch Wikipedia with their infantile squabbles. I guess it makes sense to someone. Kirker (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the madhouse. :) The only thing I can think of now is to keep track of R's contribs and warn for civility/NPOV violations, and if R doesn't stop, he will be blocked. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Longer boats are coming to win us, they're coming to win us, they're coming to win us...

Hey, thanks for the message on my Talk Page. It appears that salt is the balm of choice on Wikipedia when it comes to treating wounds. :-O

Also, thanks for the comments on the ANI page -- I am lucky no admin took your advice seriously about blocking me! Really, I don't know what that whole thread was about! ==:-O

And, yes, Papa Bear & His Oompah Band are the Pink Floyd of oompah music. :-D Ecoleetage (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Ecoleetage‎

I actually was trying to be nice to Ecoleetage, after re-reading what I said I suppose it might be perceived as kind of a smart-ass comment. Honestly did not mean to come across like that.--Theoneintraining (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Beliefs of Christianity

This time I have given my sources. They are a factual. There are many more.Kazuba (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tea

A Nice Cup of Tea...

I understand why RHMED's oppose annoyed you. I agree that it's a poor reason to oppose. However any user can oppose for any reason (or indeed no reason at all). So let's have a cup of tea and move on. :-) By the way, the RFA process is currently under review. You may wish to comment there. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to et cetra

Dear Eric,

Thanks for the message. I do not deny that I found great joy in this piece of news, as you might imagine and I thank you very much for alerting me of this recent development. As for my username pages, yes I should move those too or change them.

Respectfully,

Gabr-el 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong farm queue, Erik

Hey Erik, the "farm" I refer to is WikiProject Agriculture. As much as I like Orwell, I don't think we're at that stage yet!  :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe the USDA... Eco is a meat inspector in his spare time? :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I never met a cow I didn't like! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks

Thank you for the welcome and the links list. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Advocating to get me blocked

What have I done wrong other than trying to point out the numerous mistakes that that user has made, as well as his manipulation of opinions? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeated disruption and civility violation, both of which are blockable offenses. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I have attempted to reason with the person, and that he spurned all of those reasonings, I would say I have a right to ABF. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of Barack Obama is disputed

I have started a new section on the Talk:Barack Obama page here. Kindly replace the tag on the article mainspace. Thank you. Curious bystander (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Erik the Red 2. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment at Talk:Barack Obama. If you insist on comparing Barack Obama to a Featured Article, compare it to Tony Blair the day it was awarded FA status. WorkerBee74 has made that comparison in the past. He has observed that "criticism and controversy were the lifeblood of Tony Blair the day it achieved Featured Article status." You may also wish to look at another FA BLP, Hugo Chavez. Curious bystander (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Chavez (also) isn't an FA anymore. WB74's personal analysis of Tony Blair isn't any reason to add criticism into Barack Obama's article. See WP:OSE. And it's actually you who insisted on comparing Obama to an FA. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Hello Erik. Regarding your comment at Ecoleetage's talk page, allow me to say that you should consider the possibility that what you call "fair and honest comments" may be anything but. After all, I believe that my reaction to his comments should at least merit a suspicion or indication. Best regards, Húsönd 22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Thanks

Thank you most sincerely for your input on the "bridge controversies" discussion in Sarah Palin. Dave Collect (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2