User talk:Fabartus/Archive02

15 Mar 06 - Genesis (Originally Archive03 ---->moved---> Archive02 when consolidated that file with Archive01, on this date.

Archives 09 July 2005 thru 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Originally saved as Archive03 due to that funny IE6 browser edit problem in Arcs 01 and 02. (Firefox works, so can complete this housework!)

FrankB 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Other talk page archives:

• /Archive01— Through July 8th, 2005
  
• This page — Through 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Archive03— Through 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Archive04
  
• /Archive05
  

...that's all folks!

FrankB says:   Hi! and WELCOME!

The current time is: 08:58 (UTC) on December 2, 2024

If there is a need for speed, duplicate your post in an email
(gives me an audible alarm even when I'm off Wikipedia) "fabartus–at–comcast.net"
Click HERE To Bottom Post a New Section to my current talk page!

Democratic Peace Theory

Hello. Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I simply do not have the time to be involved in more than the handful of projects I work on now. I looked at the Talk page to see if it was perhaps a relatively straightforward issue I could make a quick contribution to, but it's an involved dispute that will take too much time if I'm to contribute meaningfully. Thank you for asking anyway. Regards,~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 18:04 (UTC)

DPT (again)

Thank you; the versions are mentioned on the Talk page under the section Which Version, and should still be current. Since the fundamental cause of difference is the order of the whole article after the section=head Criticisms, the diff is not likely to be particularly informative, I regret to say. Try reading each version separately, and see which is clear (if either, he said modestly).

My most recent version is this one which is also "[http://tinyurl_com/c6wl5 here]", in tinyurl.

I see WHEELER is also back, if you have encountered him

This appears to be right.

Septentrionalis 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

re:Final approval vote

Thank you for your explanation dated Jul 6. I know her purpose, but,

• Your count of the first vote seems to be wrong. It is 7 supports and 3opposes, isn't it?
• I hardly believe this final vote resolve this complicated situation, because it treats two different issues simultaneously (singular/plural and naming) as same as the first and second votes did.

I think that we should solve one by one, ie. the singular/plural issue first and the naming second.

And thank you again for information about the strait. Im sorry but I am very busy now. It will continue 2 or 4 weeks. After that, I would like to visit there.

Anyway I found two old pictures you may be interested in. ([1], [2]) The first one is the first brige over Manzeki-seto. So we can see the original Manzeki-seto. There are no explanation for the second one, but I think it is of the new bridge under construction. It may be taken two or three years earlier than 1975, the year when the canal was widened. Baru 02:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Port Arthur etc

Hello, and excuse a delay. Sorry, but i can't help much. I have not a book "Port Artur" right now, only Rusian sources about ships, not treaties. However, I think (possibly I've read somewhere), that Russians started works only after lease 1898. And I haven't seen Russian sources on it...

However, getting back to a battle of Port Arthur - I might enhance the naval part of the article, with all naval activities until the fall of Port Arthur, but I'm not sure, if it might be still under a title "battle of Port Arthur" then. And I think, that "Impact on History" section treats in fact on siege of Port Arthur and possibly should be moved there? Pibwl ←« 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Agree that impact on history is 'overdone'; most belongs in Russo-Japanese War. I guess that's what I get for editing much too late at night! :) I've planned on upgrading the whole article, but free time has turned scarce, though will get to eventually, it if you don't first! Certainly the surface action after dawn needs covered, which if you look back a month or so in the history, is all that was covered, the torpedo attack being given barely a mention. FrankB 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have another idea: I think we should place all later naval activities at Port Arthur, after the openning battle, as a chapter in siege of Port Arthur (I mean, sinking of Petropavlovsk and Japanese battleships on mines, etc). By the way, I've just noticed, that improving battle of Port Arthur, I focussed on night torpedo attack only (Russian losses mentioned are from this attack), but I should also expand the subject of another-day battle (which brought no losses, apart from some artillery damage).

How detailed are those books? I want to do a table of stregth for each side, up through battle of Tsushima. i.e displacement, speed, heavy guns, med. guns, which were Armored Cruisers, Protected Cruisers, Older/Newer Ships, etc.

VERY detailed :-) See here: [3] If you don't read Cyrilic, I can help you with data, names etc.

Some of my sources use various alternate terms such as 'First Class Cruiser', 'Second Class Cruiser',

1st class were Russian stronger protected cruisers, 2nd class were light ones, like Novik and armed yachts like Almaz. Pibwl ←« 22:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Answer and subsequent Talks now moved to Talk:Timeline_of_the_Russo-Japanese_War. FrankB 05:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Gotō-rettō

--Pitan 03:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) says (Interleaved) re: Thank you for your creation of Gotō-rettō, but we already have Goto-Retto (We don't use macrons in the title.

• Yeah, I noticed the duplicate when I went to add to the list of Japan Topics. Do you want to merge them, or shall I

(No question mark on this laptop keyboard-- it's dead, Jim!)

• IIRC, Naming Conventions shouldn't have a capital letter on the second word either! I'd have much rather not created that one on the fly, as it was the fourth or fifth edit window I had going at the time! :(

re: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)). Hirado-jima is a single island near Kyushu, and is not a part of Goto-Retto. See also Goto, Nagasaki, Shinkamigoto, Nagasaki and Hirado, Nagasaki. --Pitan 03:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I'll take a look, I'm just kinda cleaning up where I was mediating now that the edit war seems to have flamed out in Tsushima Island. Whew! 'Bout time! Please, Do Keep the alternate spelling as a redirect... I'm rather insistant when an authorative print publication (in this case, an Atlas) is using a naming convention that Wiki should match it, at least through redirects (My prime focus is history articles, hence it can drive me nuts when terms are missing!). Why does that second word have a Cap anyway
• The search engine doesn't seem to care about macrons (e.g. Lüshun gets the same place as Lushun, and Goto-retto DIES fine too. Hmmmmm.)
• Time to get to bed, got to get up for work in 6 hours... Let me know who is fixing it! I have no problem with merging it if you want to mingle and merge.

FrankB 04:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please merge the articles if you don't mind. I agree with you that the second capital is inappropriate, and it is necessary to make proper redirects. I'm puzzled too, that there is no consensus on titles for Japanese islands. --Pitan 06:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan Again?

I'm pretty sure that ETTan (talk · contribs) is our old (or young) friend. See what you think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added a note to User talk:Mr Tan. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and for all your hard work on this. He has certainly proved you right! Sunray 06:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my changes in Taoism and Tao Te Ching

I'm pretty new in Wiki. There are only 2 articles I'd commented about: Taoism and Tao Te Ching as I'd already working on these 2 topics for years. For me, its kind of weird to translate the chinese character ? , which means nothing, as empty. This is the main reason that I insist on the changes. Besides, I also provide other reasons, which are established knowledge among taoist scholars, in my discussions. Hopefully, you are not taking grudge against all chinese just because of some bad examples. Please read my comments properly and consult some real experts, who have to know classical chinese, if possible. Finally, I demand an apology from Mel for throwing mud at me.

--ETTan 15:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Long reply on User Talk:ETTan FrankB

Jenmoa

Hey, thanks for the birthday greetings. :) Sure, I'll take a look at those articles for copyediting tonight. (First, my mother wants to check her email, haha.) --User:Jenmoa 23:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Manchurian Railway treaties

I'm really sorry that I'm so dreadfully late in replying to your questions. I've been doing translations for people fighting over heaps and piles of money, which really took away a lot of my time because I also do in-house translation work from 9:00 to 5:00.

I also have to confess that I am not very familiar with these historical events. I am trying to work from credible and available sources, so you can verify most of the information.

• Have you got any sources on

1. when the Russians started building the Railway between Harbin and Chita, Harbin and Vladivostok? (Once known as 'Manchurian Railway' now called China Far East Railway)

According to the Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan entry on the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER), "In 1896 Russia gained permission from China to extend the Trans-Siberian Railroad through China directly across northern Manchuria to Vladivostok." The article does not state when they actually start building. This is probably related to the answer to your next question.

2. when they moved into Port Arthur and started upgrading it's harbor, port, town, etc. (which seems to have been well before (2-3 years?) the actual lease Kwantung Leased Territory of 1898).

This was the hard one. I had trouble finding information that supported what you wrote (that the Russians moved in to Port Arthur at least several years before 1898)

After quite a bit of searching, found an interesting blurb on the ja.wikipedia entry for Triple Intervention. The article states (translated from Japanese), "Russia, which signed the Li Hongzhang - Lobanoff (or Lobanow) treaty in 1896, which was a secret agreement, later succeeded in the lease of Ryojun (Port Arthur) and Dalian in 1898. Russia subsequently spread its sphere of influence to Manchuria and areas north of the Great Wall, and realized its ambitions in the far east."

On other Japanese websites, I was able to confirm that the secret treaty is also called the Cassini Treaty. I then was able to find several English websites that used the name "Cassini Convention" According to information I found on Japanese websites, the convention was apparently signed by Li Hongzhang and the Foreign Minister of Russia (whose name is Cassini, Lobanoff, Lobanow, or Witte - quite a bit of confusion here).

The most significant information I was able to find about the Cassini Convention was here. This appears to be (of all things) the 1911 Britannica.

It appears that the website does not tolerate people posting its Contents, so I will not post excerpts here. You should go to the above webpage and search for "cassini," which will take you to the portion I'm talking about. A google search for "Cassini Convention" should also uncover some interesting documents, some which are just too long to read on a whim.

3. when they actually started building a railway South from Harbin, and North from Port Arthur? (i.e. eventually became the South Manchurian Railway)

According to the Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan entry on the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER), "In 1898 Russia exacted Chinese consent to build another line, from Dairen (Ch: Dalian or Ta-lien; now a part of Luda) and Port Arthur north to the CER, this later became known as the South Manchurian Railway (SMR)." Again, the article does not state when they actually start building. This also appears to be related to the 1911 Britannica article I refer to in the answer to your second question.

Additionally, The Japan Center for Asian Historical Records states that Russia began to use Harbin as a base to construct the CER in 1898. Several other webpages also indicate that construction began in 1898. I am not sure of the accuracy of this information.

4. Also whether and hence when they 'actually leased' the region of the mainline 'Manchurian Railroad' through Harbin (Chita to Vladovostok), and whether that has a treaty specific name such as the Kwangtung...

According to the Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan entry for Chinese Eastern Railway, "The Japanese conquest of Manchuria... brought Japanese power to the very border of the Soviet Union... In case of war, the Japanese could seize the railway (CER) without difficulty, and the Japanese Guandong (Kwantung) Army stationed in Manchuria could easily use the Russian railway presence to manufacture a pretext of war... Under those circumstances, the Russians sought to sell the CER to Japan. Negotiations... were concluded in March 1935 with an agreement whereby Russia sold the CER to the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo for 140 million yen. Soon afterward it was placed under the control of the South Manchuria Railway Company."

• In sum, I'm trying to verify and reconcile dates of treaties and leases, et al between all the 'See Also' links at the bottom of the Manchurian Railway and China Far East Railway (which may be merged someday). These of course are also all relevant and important to the whole series of Russo-Japanese War articles, and later Second Sino-Japanese War articles as well as Manchukuo, so I think getting this kind of detail down and correct can be very important, especially in that my sources have indicated Russia almost certainly moved in and started building without permission from Qing China, at least in what eventually became the Kwantung Leased Territory, which information also directly contradicts the Manchukuo article in who built the South Manchurian Railway initially, which should be the Russians, improved and later managed by your countrymen. So I can use the help of someone with your language skills in sorting through such contradictions. Especially if you can access sources I cannot, as I know you can.
• Which language is the Map on Manchukuo annotated in? See I can't even tell that! <G>

I agree with you... the Russians initially built the South Manchurian Railway. The map on Manchukuo is written in Japanese. However, it's old, pre-war Japanese, so most non-natives will have trouble trying to read it. I will also send you scans of the Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan articles for the South Manchuria Railway and the Chinese Eastern Railway. (Scanned them now - and discovered that I only photocopied the 1st page of the South Manchuria Railway article!! So sorry!) The 1911 Britannica article I talked about appeared to be quite detailed, so you probably want to read it (if you haven't already). I hope this information will be some use to you - at least become a good starting point for research. Atsi Otani 15:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nanshu is back

Long time no see. Sorry for not meeting your requests regarding Tsushima. I had difficulty in real life, but now I'm back to Wikipedia. I will restart fixing Tsushima-related articles next week, as currently I cannot have access to the books I referred to because libraries are closed for Bon Festival. --Nanshu 01:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Last prevacation post is answer to above at: Nashu's Talk FrankB

----

I've been on Uncyclopediaand while I was there I missed you eventhough you only gave me two messages.--Yo Mama 5000 23:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of the Russo-Japanese War

It's been seven weeks since you've created the article and it is not usable nor have you done anything with it. It's going on my watchlist and unless you've goten it up to snuff in a week I'm gonna submit it to a {{afd}} discussion. Caerwine 02:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you've been affected by Katrina, but since you think I was being uncharitable in my remark above, I may as well continue that uncharity and point out that had you gotten it to the state you had planned in the time you had said that you had planned it would have been done a month before Katrina. I can understand that good intentions can go awry, but the article in its current state is not useful. Caerwine 01:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You made it pretty obvious you really did not want this page deleted. I userfied it, and it is now at User:Fabartus/Timeline of the Russo-Japanese War, and the talk page is there also. When you get it to a useful state, move it back. I also removed the stub tag from it, as this puts it in a category with stubs -- it's not actually a stub yet, just an under construction notice. :) --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Help needed at Sea of Japan naming dispute

Please take care of this article. There have been a fierce edit war since August. --Ypacaraí 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Material Moved Here 060403 (3 APRIL 2006)

FrankB 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

UserTalk:Fabartus/CommunityContrib02

Hi. UserTalk:Fabartus/CommunityContrib02 looks like a misnamed archive. Can I ask you to move it from the main article namespace into whereever you feel is appropriate, and request deletion of the trailing redirect? THanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A few weeks after this message someone moved said archive into your user talk namespace (it didn't have the space between user and talk originally, which meant it ended up in the main namespace). So the problem is fixed now. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oceanography Thinklets Updated

Modified Oceanography Clean Status to reflect revisions since June 2005 <G>
RJBurkhart 13:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sig

Yeah, there was apparently a software change (when I was away sometime in November) and my sig broke at the time too. Try clicking the "use raw signatures" box and then try [[User:Fabartus|Fra]]<font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> (note also the font tags outside of the square brackets). Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 01:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Testing, FrankB Have a Hearty THANKS!!! I just added some Bold to the Blue following your lead. FrankB 20:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Moravians (religion)

Hi,

You posted a {{cleanup-date}} message on this article: Moravians (religion). If you feel that it has been satisfactorily cleaned, could you please remove the notice?

Thanks, Andrewjuren 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Sure! Completed: 13 March 06

PCP

Thanks so much for your review! I understood that the lead section really needs to be improved, along with a major reconstruction and, perhaps, moving, of the principles section. I'll work on that. Like you said, some changes may imply that the article becomes NPOV, I experienced that for many times. But I'll try to make balanced changes, mainly in references to the former regime or to the party's goals. I think these are you main concerns, and surely, the concerns of the majority of those who read or started reading the article. I'll try to include those "hook facts" to improve the interest of the readers in the article.

About the american stance on socialism and communism, I think that may be a reason against a possible promotion of the article, but recently Che Guevara or Hugo Chávez became FA, so, I think that is not an absolute fact, but your point is very good. Thank you very much Afonso Silva 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jen-Tower

Hi, Fabartus. That's fine. The article has been improved. I put the cleanup tag on because of sentences like this:

"Over the tower climbs persistent the rumor of an originally planned, however never implemented twin tower, which is identically constructed implemented and connected with the realized building by a bridge and such binoculars as symbol for the optical tool-making represented strongly in the city Jena represent should."

Jen-Tower

My only interest in the Jen-Tower article was wikification. I found it in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. I've wikified a very large number of articles and changed the tags on a significant percentage of them, so you don't need to notify me to change or remove a tag that I have placed. Thanks, though. Thanks also for your get well wish. I suspect it will take a while, but I expect to get better. -- Kjkolb 14:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Searches, etc.

I'm not clear as to exactly what you need; are you using Windows? If so, is "Ctrl-F" not what you need? (If the answer is, as I suspect, that of course it isn't, then I'm obviously completely at sea, and you'll need to explain it to me again — sorry.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. Another thought: Google allows you to search within a particular site, which is made easier if you've downloaded the Google toolbar. I use it all the time, and it can be a huge time-saver. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, The Google toolbar won't help with first occurrence of a template — for that, I think the History is the only route.

I had a short break, and was surprised at how much had changed when I returned (which I nearly didn't, to be honest). I'd missed a huge war between admins over User boxes, the introduction of the necessity to open an account before editors could start a new page, and who knows what else? Tan has offered yet another account of who he is (or they are), but if User:PM Poon isn't Tan I'd be amazed — the same editing style and everything.

Who has left Wikipedia? I'm not really sure; a few people have, certainly, but I lose track of who and when (I've just finished another hectic term, which hasn't helped my state of mind — not to mention a hysterical user flapping about and making a scene — Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mademoiselle Sabina). There are a few people who haven't left, but who I wish had. (You see — my English is going to pot. I need to go to bed.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the link to Poon's page is red; following it on the assumption that I'd typed it wrongly, I discover that it was deleted at his request, as he's giving up Wikipedia — so that's certainly someone who's left (unless he's just concentrating on being Tan...).

With regard to the mess below — sorry, I didn't mean to drag you in to this. As neither of the two proposers bothered to let me know about the RfC, I had to find out about it through third parties. So far, at least, the 100% consensus among those responding is that it shouldn't have been brought, and that Mademoiselle Sabina is in fact the one responsible for the unpleasantness — which was my view too. I've given up the idea that she might come to realise this, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Great RFC Mediation

Initital Message from Mademoiselle Sabina

Hi.

1. I learned about the RFC because someone brought it to my attention as a possible means to solve the dispute on my Talk Page. 2. Following the link to the RFC page mentions that Wikietiquette is an option to solve minor disagreements between users. I used that option because I thought it would be better than a full out RFC. I decided to pursue the RFC route after Mel put up his attack page. As to how I got around the Wiki signature file, I didn't. I edited the alert after I discovered the attack page, and again to ask if I should close it when I opened the RFC. The Nowiki code is right on the Wikietiquette page; how is this a deep dark secret newbies can't know about? 3. Sock puppet? I don't think so. I'm not even going to dignify this. 4. The fact that the user is a "tenured professor at Oxford" has no bearing on this discussion, or on the fact that he has acted deplorably. I'm focusing on his conduct here, not his status on Wikipedia or anywhere else. And frankly, if you check his Talk Page, I am not the only user who has had a problem with him over his edits and "lectures". Mademoiselle Sabina 05:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer

• • Response to above post (You pulled me out of the RFC where I was trying to figure out why you are so hot and bothered about any of this):

1. 1. Kind of using an elephant gun to shot a gnat. Actually, it's more of a Naval Rifle on a battleship. Definitely well beyond Howitzer grade.
   2. First I've ever heard of the Wikietiquette page, and I'd spent a lot time snooping sysop pages last summer, so I owe you one. But who has time to snoop? There have been a lot of changes since I went south post-katrina, and I can't guarantee it wasn't here before that. Still don't think posting a complaint in the 3rd person was anything but underhanded and sneaky. I WILL BE examining that history to see who PRECISELY put the nowiki around your signature, but one catch... it was there in your first posting—[4] shows it before the first entry was saved. Hmmmm, your second edit seems to have deleted it and your nowikis. Far be it for me to call you a liar, but I'd get a new computer at the very least.
   3. Dignify it or not, but consider this: What obstensible purpose would Mel have for collecting evidence about you on one of his personal pages... Moreover, in six weeks, why were you snooping enough to catch him at it? THAT Also suggests an experienced user, either one banned now under an alias, or a socketpuppet. Building a page about your thread was likely an attempt to understand what the heck was going on. He's pretty much figured he's got an angry wildcat by the tail— perhaps he was trying to understand so he could figure out to let go. Without seeing it, how am I to judge? You may indeed be a quicker learner than the average newbie, but if so, where is the harm done you by a difference in word choice that you would launch a vendetta of this kind? The RFC is like a Felony charge, not a misdemeanor level resort! I'll give you that Mel can be testy in a way that is typically common to the Brits, but nothing I've seen was even slightly offensive. Cool, a tad sarcastic, but with dignified professionalism. (I haven't yet examined the whole RFC evidence, but your side isn't doing well so far, legit new user with 40+ edits or whatever.) OTOH, Mel could have been a less abrasive as well, but he gets tart when he's frustrated, and I have no doubt with all the demands he has on his time, you probably caught him at least once during a time when he was pressed for time. But he's also courteous inthat he gets back to you as soon as he can. So see that too. Maybe something he said 'just came out sideways', as a therapist friend I have would say.
   4. If conduct is the issue at hand, you're way off the reservation. My comment about Mel's credentials is right on point— this will make you a joke as his reputation is towering. More often than not Mel has had to handle some real abuse and invective, and as snide as he can be, you are very wet behind the ears if you think this picyune fuss is worth anyone's time. Some editors will do you much worse than this. Just keep editing a few more weeks and you'll discover a real troll and wish Mel were around to kiss you. But then you won't be able to call on a troll killer like Mel, as you'll have ticked him (and his friends) off that you'll be like the boy who cried wolf. Oh, someone may intervene half-heartedly, but lip service is all you are setting yourself up for. The admins are so over worked that it's incredible any of them go back to the fight on any day. I'd certainly not want the job. Suggest a good perusal of that wikietiquette page and some snooping in the talk pages those things will take you to see. Or try one of the genocide pages. In other words, you badly need some wiki-perspective and need it quick! This naval rifle (RFC) is far too large to let it stick around. You're dead in the water anyway, as you have no co-complainer. That voids the RFC in 48 hours regardless, unless there was a third party to this dispute I haven't seen this evening. Don't see one in the text record anywhere. So why'd you file it?
   5. As to your closing comment, having gone through several really nasty edit wars with Mel, I will concede he can seem abrupt and rude. I've also seen him demonstrate almost angelic patience within a seven way edit war that went well over a month with 30+ edits a day, name calling, and whatnot. I'm trying to get him to apologize for that ocassional roughspot of his is not a surprise. I suspect I see what happened better than both of you, as my emotions are not engaged. So how do I get you to realize you don't look too good in this either. This is a major overreaction based on wikinorms, or they've really tightened things down a lot in the seven months I was down south. Don't think so. Look at the debate on Jimbo Wale's talk page (follow my post from contributions). Better yet, get onto the WP:AFD debates and see some of the unkind cuts there. It'll give you an opportunity to meet quite a few other admins as well. You'll want that some day if you stick with this.

In closing, IMHO, you both owe the other an apology, and agree that getting in the last word is not and was not a good idea. End story. Let's us all get back to wikiwork, not this wasted typing. The biggest part of wikietiquette is knowing when to stop an arguement, and yell for help. Haven't seen you asking another admin to intercede or mediate (as yet) but I'll get back to the RFC now that this is good enough to mail.

Be well, and give it some thought. Elephant guns should be used carefully.FrankB 06:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Breaking Through

Hi,

The more level-headed comments are at the end of this entry.

1. I have reverted my Talk Page. If Mel can revert his Talk Page to remove edits he finds offensive with no repercussions, so can I. What works for one editor should work for another, yes? While you make many good points about the situation, your comments about Zoloft and such were not nice, and were not necessary. If you would like to add this particular discussion to my Talk Page or re-edit your remarks, you are more than welcome to do so.
2. I never said I "got around the signature" somehow. If you look at my User Contributions, you will easily see when I edited the Wikietiquette page. I said I edited the page twice, I screw up my edits/signatures often, my computer logs me out and I don't know it until I post, and so forth. The WIketiquette page states that you MUST use the tag if you're adding a dispute.

When I posted the remark in the third person, I was not trying to do anything sneaky or underhanded. I was following the format used by other entries on the page. I also felt that putting it in the third person might be an easier way to distance myself from the situation and write a valid complaint. I did the same thing in the RFC.

1. I wasn't "snooping" on Mel's pages. He linked the offensive Mel Ettis/Mademoiselle Sabina to my talk page so it was easily there for the world to see.

1. Again, I do not feel his credentials are at all important. The fact that someone has a degree behind his name does not mean that his word is gospel. It means he was able to complete a thesis. I've met a lot of PhDs who are bumbling twits who can barely find their way to work. I have not stated my own credentials. As far as I am concerned, everyone is equal here.

1. I filed the RFC because I repeatedly asked Mel to stop commenting and he refused to do so, levelling personal attacks in the process.

Level Headed

Now, to the more level-headed remarks.

You're right. I wasn't particularly nice to Mel; he wasn't particuarly nice to me. I basically felt that I was returning what I received from him. Perhaps he's simply testy; perhaps he's had a lot of long days; perhaps on this thing called the Internet it's impossible to really discern someone's true emotions and meaning from their words alone. One never knows.

You and the other editor on my Talk Page are absolutely right, the situation got out of control on both sides. I'm willing to admit that. However, each of us has equal responsibilty here. It's not all about me. I'm sure that editing wars, flames, etc. can get nasty on Wikipedia and this is just a drop in the bucket.

I put in the RFC and Wikietiquette requests in the hopes it would resolve the conflict; if you have any other ideas for mediation or conflict resolution, I'd be open to hearing them. Thank you for all the time you have spent with this issue. Best, Mademoiselle Sabina 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Thank you again for your comments and your help in resolving this. Your links and comments about the difficulties of language on Wikipedia. I suppose it's one of the perils of having a site that is edited by users from different anglophone countries; there are bound to be differences and strong opinions on all sides. I have a lot to learn here.

Unfortunately, I do not wish to take down the RFC or send Mel an apology for the simple reason that he is to blame for this, too, and he has not acknowledged it. You and I both agreed that neither of us looks particularly good in this conflict. However, on the RFC page, I notice that Mel, in his response, still paints me as the Bad Guy here and maintains that he is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. When he admits he has some liability here, and perhaps takes down his attack page, I'll be happy to speak to the other editor involved in this case and discuss closing the RFC. I respect your opinion that he is a good person; I'll reserve my own opinion on this one. Frankly I just hope to avoid him on Wiki from now on. Mademoiselle Sabina 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• • That's something I need to think on. Too emotional 4b4 done w/first mug o'caffine. FrankB 16:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am on my way out the door now, but I am adding the reply I gave on my Talk Page to the other editor involved in this issue. He apparently has tried to speak to Mel about a compromise, with no resolution.

I'm on my way out the door now, so this will be quick, but here are my thoughts. I'll respond more in detail later, but here are the bare bones. I agree that perhaps if this matter is not resolved we should consider withdrawing the RFC. However, I am going to ask FrankB and CommanderKeane if perhaps there is a way to close the RfC as "unresolved"--ie, we stand by our original statement that Mel had some liability here, but recognize that the matter will not be resolved. I don't even know if this is a possibilty on Wiki but I will ask later.

What do you think of this possibility? Thank you for all the hours and work you have done on this case. I know you were not involved in this dispute, so I thank you for stepping in to try to fix things. Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 17:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

• Posted the above compromise to Mel with recommendation of tendered apology for prof-to-student 'abrasiveness' and move of the alledged 'attack page' to within the RFC to maintain the evidenuary chain. Post via URGENT email just moments ago. FrankB 18:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and Praise (Gosh!)

Thank you again for all your help and mediation here. I know this has taken hours...days...when will it end? I am in total agreement with your compromise suggestion, and will wait to see what turns out. Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One More Post

One more post and then I am done for the day, really. :) Hopefully.

I left a message on my own Talk Page (I have no idea how to get to the link myself, but it's right above your comment to C. and below the comments from FloNight with the shamrock icon) basically reiterating what was said above and outlining a plan to stop this in future. In a nutshell, I suggested that perhaps we (C. and myself) sit tight, see what will come of the mediation attempts, and if that fails, see about the Close Unresolved/archiving of the RfC. I also suggested that we both simply refuse to engage in debates with Mel in future in any way, that any comments to our personal Talk Pages can be ignored if necessary, and that we keep all issues about questionable edits to the respective articles' Talk Pages.

Does that sound like a good plan? Thanks again for your help. Namaste. Mademoiselle Sabina 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Premature Help has arrived

You wanted some help, here I am! How can I help you? You can ask your questions right here, and I will respond.--Commander Keane 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin, although I'm not sure how to end an RfC. I'm assuming you are talking about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Ettis. I recommend you ask for advice at WP:AN.-- Commander Keane 09:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• The above was a test of the {{Helpme}} facility, in the hope an admin would be able to perform a speedy delete. Actual but inconsequential response on User Talk:Commander Keane FrankB 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Big Question

Hello. I think, that your last comment on Mademoiselle Sabina's page was referred to me, wasn't it? Then why shouldn't I wait for Mademoiselle Sabina's answer for withdrawal of my RFC? I think I should, she is also an involved part...Cmapm 17:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And Cmapm Too!

By the way, here's her reply: [5]. I think, it's reasonable and I support her view. Cmapm 18:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote from that her message:However, I am going to ask FrankB and CommanderKeane if perhaps there is a way to close the RfC as "unresolved"--ie, we stand by our original statement that Mel had some liability here, but recognize that the matter will not be resolved. I don't even know if this is a possibilty on Wiki but I will ask later. I support it, because I think, all three involved parts (me, Mel Etitis and probably Mademoiselle Sabina) were wrongdoing in some way. BTW, it was I, who suggested Mademoiselle Sabina to fil the RFC, so, I am the originator and is responsible for this. Cmapm 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oopsie

You were wrong to say, that I am a newbie of 2 or 3 months, I've been here for ~1.5 years and have more than 3000 edits. Would you like to correct your mistake yourself or me editing it? Cmapm 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"but if that's so, why the heck did this blow up like this?" I don't know, but you see, that Mel did not just "struggle with newbies". I repeat, I believe, that all three of us were wrongdoing in this pointless discussion. Cmapm 20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So what I have to do?

So, what I have to do? I've completely lost in this pointless discussion. Should I and other just users switch to other topics, be ignorant and all will be OK? Or I must do something to stop these infinite series of comments by me and other users? Cmapm 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Current Status

• • • This is broken Link Left on User talk: Tony Sidaway — now fixed to point the Archieved Page. FrankB 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reply on User talk:Cmapm#Resolution.21 and result is:

1. Ammended Note to Tony_Sidaway
2. Second Action
3. Also email to Mel with first link above (Assume if working will see the Admin board in due course)

• Otherwise waiting for guidance from admin posting. FrankB 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the discussion on Tony's page to see what the status of the RfC is. I archived my Talk Page simply because it had become long and ugly, and in light of the RfC's closure, I saw it as a means of closing the matter for myself (psychologically if you will; not Wiki policy-style closing) and returning everything (and my page!) to normal. All discussions are left intact in "Archive A", if you like I will add a note to my Talk Page directly people to this Archive. Sorry for any inconvenience. Namaste. Mademoiselle Sabina 09:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Added Note on Mel's Page. The sticky problem remaining is the alledged 'Attack Page', and including it with the RFC archieve. FrankB 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how what you've done will go down (strictly speaking there's no process to close RfCs, much less prematurely); still, we'll see what happens. It was clearly meant well, and I appreciate the time and effort that you've put in.

As the so-called "attack page" is seen as such by no-one except the two editors bringing the RfC, I don't see its removal as being urgent. I think that it should remain until the issue is definitely closed, though. You see, I'm afraid that I'm not interested in compromise; a silly RfC has been opened on the basis of what can most generously be described as a deep misunderstanding of what I wrote. There aren't two sides in this, between whom compromise would be necessary — there's just one side, the RfC-bringers. I have nothing to apologise for; even under personal attack I became no more than slightly testy.

The page I deleted

The page I deleted was a redirect from the incorrectly formatted UserTalk:Fabartus/Scratchpad01 to the correctly formatted User talk:Fabartus/Scratchpad01, which is still there. It had been moved to the correctly formatted location by User:Sam Hocevar, and I then deleted the redirect as a user error, because it was your error to place it in the wrong place (UserTalk instead of User talk). Oh and I agree regarding the whitespace in the Aylesbury article, but seeing as I don't own the article personally I hadn't looked at it for a month or two. Thank you for pointing this out. -- Francs2000 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Sorry, I'd already left. I see that someone else did it though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

top

I don't really know, I'm afraid, but at a guess I'd say that it means that your edit was the latest on that article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vladivostok, King of the East

Well, Frank,

You are just brimming with surprises. How to manage an aquarium to the healthful aspects of eating lima beans, to the China-Trans-Siberian Railway, among other information! I've never had a conversation OR a relationship with someone who is, in essence, an author of encyclopedia articles. Wow! I admire your fountainhead.

And I have to admit, going through nursing school has yet to cure me of certain less-than-enlightened attitudes and behaviors. I am not soup yet...  :~)

Best, S Gosh, Sue. Pardon me blushes. You forgot to mention measuring cups... We have a relationship? Not only am I getting senile, me sense of touch seems to hae nae more memory than de brain does! FrankB 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

163x / Category:1632-163x alternative-history series

"Can you drop me a quick list of the 1632 series articles as you now know it, or confirm the 1632 series article is complete wrt all the spin-offs."

Just the ones in Category:163x so far as I know, plus the broader Assiti Shards series article, and of course Eric Flint. We don't even have an article on 1633 (novel) yet.

(Do Now) <G>

—wwoods 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you moved to replace the Category:163x with a much more cumbersome and less user-friendly Category:1632-163x alternate history series?

Brief: I had asked for the above and got back Category:1632-163x alternative-history series; NBD, all we need is an admin to move it. FrankB 01:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that this cat does not exist yet? I think we should restore the old cat, it was perfectly fine as it was.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions? Especially the ...while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. part? While a case can be made that '163x' vs. '1632 series', the '1632-163x alternate history series' is a horrible monstrosity (no offence) that nobody will be able to remember, and that is terrible as both any article name and as a category name (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)). I appreciate your effort in developing articles, and you did a tremendous job in 1632 (novel), but you have to work on naming depeartment. Oh, and please don't overuse bold text, inclinations, headings and templates on talk pages - your posts look as a discussion of many users and are rather difficult to follow.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Posted Answer on his talk to take this to the talk: 1632 series talks. FrankB

Cutting above to there as well. FrankB 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I now study at Pitt, but every few months or so I may go back to Poland, so I decided to keep both geo-categories. I'll be happy to help with the WikiProject, but I don't have time to 'push it' myself. The part I am doing on the Bar and here is the relation between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and 163x-verse. See also User:Piotrus/Sandbox/163x.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for clearing that up. I had this vision of dealing with a giant that had a 10 league stride, spanning continents in a single bound! We have a lot in common. You're about 35 miles NNW of my home town (Belle Vernon), and I'm 3/4ths Polack and 1/4tr Lithuanian, so I be looking to see you masterpiece! If you can help me prod a few people into action, I understand the demands made on a student quite well. (11+ years taking at least a half load will do that for one!) FrankB 01:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow! I'm impressed with that sandbox fella! You must hang out on Baen's Bar more than I ever did. I haven't been a regular there for at least 15 months. How many other fan sites do you know of. Plz put in projects Head as 4th subsection. The real need is to find an old archieve that lists 1632 characters and maybe a minibio as well. Alternative is to take Virginia's Grid into excell and export the pertinent columns into a text file. (txt). I'm an old fuddy duddy w/o excel. Can you take that task on? Put it into a WorkPage (sandbox or subpage) so we can all play with it, or email it to me and I'll do it. Beats going through book by book para by para for a partial list!

• If you want to attract 163x-fans, check who edited the article in the past and inform them about your idea, if you want to seek category specialists, try Wikipedia talk:Category and such. I think that Category:1632 series is the best solution, no need for inclusion of '163x' (which I invented, as far as I know :>) or 'alt-hist' parts (just as Star Trek does not include Star Trek sci-fi or such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Although I do consider myself part-comp geek, my actuall fields of study are social sciences (economics, sociology - see my user page bio :>). As for 'alt-hist' and Star Trek being iconic - please look at Cat egory:Series of books (for example) and show me a single series that has a similar description. Sure, 1632 may not be well known, but neither is 99% of the other series - and do you see them with such labels? The only add-on a few (and I mean 'a few') of them have is 'books' (like Cat egory:Chronicles of Amber books) - but even Category:1632 series books that I think is overly complicated things unless we have 1632 series movis, comics, plays or something like this that would require a disambig - although I guess if we have Category:1632 series characters or such, than I could grudgingly accept the 'books' add-on.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I know I have other hobbies to edit on Wiki, as I already told you. There is only that much one man (or even one million :>) can do, when faced with the task of organizing all of humanity's knowledge. Get a good night's sleep and think about the cats.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

Well, the term is used in all British English (and, so far as I can tell, Australian, New Zealand, etc., English) as well as by some U.S. science-fiction authors. Note that, even apart from the Misnomer article, the Wikipedia article on Alternate history gives both forms.

See also, for example, such U.S uses as [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc.

Makes sense your second link gives both forms on the same page. Search engines won't miss him!

I might be a little bit like "Sci-Fi" (shudder) versus "S.F." The latter tends to be used by science-fiction enthusiasts, writers, etc., while the former is the journalists' version. The former might turn out to be a much more common usage, but I still think that we should use the latter. After all, so far as I can tell, the use of "infact" and even "atlast" as single words seem to be becoming almost standard among U.S. and increasingly U.K.) undergraduates (certainly among the ones that I teach (not to mention "disinterested" to mean "uninterested", and spelling slike "existance", "arguement", etc.), but that doesn't and shouldn't affect the way that we write. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Have no problems with word choice most of the time, mostly just picking the right synonym. I can't recall ever seeing the 'in fact'/'at last' construct misuse, but I make no claim to be very good with spelling, mostly I do ok, but I still get tripped up by some of the subtle masquerading words like your 'usage' and 'arguement' to my 'useage' AND duh - that's misspelled shock on 'arguement'.

The damn shame of it all aside, I think it goes way back to grammer school, as I recollect trying very hard for an extensive period to spell usage correctly a half-dozen years ago when I had a lot technical write-ups to do as part of a contract. I was stumbling over that one ten times a day at least, then catching it with a spell checker. After a few days of that I became conscious enough about it to see it misspelled, by the end of the month it seemed to stop happening... obviously the fix didn't last! The greater problem to my mind is improper word choice like your un- and dis- interested. If I have the least doubt when composing a phrase, I'll look it up in a heartbeat. It's the phonetic sleepers like usage and 'writting' and conscious plus the odd 'ie'/'ei' that usually twist my tail.

So be nice to undergrads on spelling, they may have been ADD hyper like I was always bouncing in my seat, and getting bored stiff; the teachers today can't whack them anymore to get their attention, so cut them some slack there and nail 'em to the cross for improper meaning.

btw over here it's usually 'sci-fi'.

FrankB 20:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tnx!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd Love to but Here's the Rub

So, I infer that the use of this photo for both the racer and the thunderbolt is wrong (links at bottom). But which is wrong? Thanks, and yes, it's okay if I'm wrong. I'm really just 30+ yrs overdrawn on memory.FrankB

• I have had no involvement with this image. Alan Liefting 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi yourself

I gafiated for a couple months myself, and returned to find User:rktect was (quite rightly) banned. I hope metrology has been cleaned up now, but there's too much to do. Septentrionalis 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't dodging Wiki, as much as helping clean up after Katrina. I didn't have to stay, or go, but it seemed right to me. What's a few months in a tent compared to having your whole life torn away?

But it's nice to be back. FrankB 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cup (unit)

I responded on my talk page. -- JLaTondre 13:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message about deletion

From your message re: 21:55, 27 March 2006 DakotaKahn deleted "1632-163x series underlying history. My deletion log shows no deletion at that time on 27 March.--Dakota ~ ° 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

please vote again here

Your request re: Working Paper

I've retrieved the text and placed it at User:Fabartus/1632-163x series underlying history. Looking at it again, there are a few points where it went against Wikipedia policy: first, never place editorial comments in articles, including signatures; secondly, the {{inuse}} template shouldn't be set to "indefinite", as this essentially takes ownership of the article. As we've discussed, there were also problems of content, including copyright and style, but you can now work on it uninterrupted until things like that are sorted out. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Mel, it was put up to suggest a techinque, not to be an article per point 2. But I should have thought twice about placing it in article space. FrankB 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Baltic War

Tnx for the news! I am not that good with bar calculation, so if you can figure out the dates for those, let me know.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)