User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 455: Line 455:


::Nope, that's just Ragesoss taking pictures of a bunch of people at the 10th anniversary meetup, so first time I'd met anyone there, but thanks for letting me know the pictures were up :) As for our previous discussions, they've been pretty much on the same subject - you seem to take this particular dispute personally and in particular have a long history of less than optimal interactions with Piotrus. It's time to [[WP:STICK|let it go]]. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 00:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::Nope, that's just Ragesoss taking pictures of a bunch of people at the 10th anniversary meetup, so first time I'd met anyone there, but thanks for letting me know the pictures were up :) As for our previous discussions, they've been pretty much on the same subject - you seem to take this particular dispute personally and in particular have a long history of less than optimal interactions with Piotrus. It's time to [[WP:STICK|let it go]]. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 00:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::In truth I'm just trying to help Wikipedia; all you're doing now really is making personal accusations against me against for telling it the way I see it. I'll note that this is a brave thing to do when it is I who has continually been proven on this matter. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


== [[Standard Chinese]] ==
== [[Standard Chinese]] ==

Revision as of 00:32, 18 January 2011

23:25 Tuesday 21 May 2024
The Signpost
16 May 2024
 
Archives:
I •
II •
III •
IV •
V •
VI •
VII •
VIII •
IX •
X •
XI •
XII •
XIII •
XIV •
XV •
XVI •
XVII •
XVIII

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John de Crannach

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Walter Forrester

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving

You have been moving a whole lot of pages about monarchs. Can you at least change their links on the templates there are on as well? Like the Pictish Scottish monarchs.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You could do that if you want to help. Otherwise, I will get to it. :) rCheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

[1]] Oh do grow up; we're all adults here. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily ... but what's the point anyway? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Right. I'm not going to tell you my schedule in case of a revert war. Ha, thanks for the essay. Almost as if reverts are like Samus' Super Missiles and blocks are your very powerful cannon. Niiice. Ian (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Toom Tabard

Hi there, just a wee thing here about oul' Balliol. I would probably concur that John Balliol is preferable to John of Scotland, as per changing the article title of Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas to the far better Archibald the Grim as he was known by his near contemporaries. However, Balliol was Rex Scottorum rather than Rex Scotiae was he not? A move to John Balliol, King of Scots might have been better. Thoughts? Brendandh (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'of Scots' versus 'of Scotland' thing is an additional complication. Since this comes up a bit I'm taking it that 'Scots' rather than 'Scotland' became the standard title later? In the period I'm familiar with they are interchangeable, as similar forms are elsewhere (king of france, of the French; of England, of the English)... might be a bit confusing to the non-Scottish reader! For the same reason, I'd prefer 'of the Scots' to 'of Scots' were the people form preferred, as 'of Scots' is too idiomatic [foreigners struggle enough mastering when English uses the and when it doesn't!]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deacon of Pndapetzim. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Byzantine Empire

Very good addition in the article!! You are correct, the Byzantine was a predominantly Greek-speaking empire. (Of course the empire eventually lost all the non Greek speaking regions. Christian Middle East was lost, the Balkan provinces were eventually taken by the Slavs, etc.. In the last 2-3 centuries the empire was held almost entirely by Byzantine Greeks and was confined mostly in the Greek regions. Obviously this was a medieval Greek state and not the previously "Greek speaking" eastern Roman empire. But that is a different story!)Seleukosa (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Template

Hi Deacon,

Yes... I think you're right. I'll play about with it this evening.

There's a similar issue with Template:Angus Towns & Villages... any suggestions what to do there? Split each of the glens into different rows? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Angus would need to be fine, I'd think. It's big, but you can't really break it up, as it is a historic district and county as well as a modern council.
Or can you? There's Strathmore, the Glens ... but what about the rest of the province? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've come up with something... Template:Perth & Kinross Towns & Villages
...see what you think. Some of the sections are larger than others, but this would seem to reflect not only the size of the counties, but also the activity of users who have an interest in those areas. I had some trouble in placing some towns/villages, for example Amulree. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

As a point of Wiki-etiquette, now that you have intervened in an Admin capacity, at Template:Countries of Europe, does that exclude you from the discussion on whether or not Scotland etc., belong on the Countries of Europe Template? And if so, is there a (self-imposed?) time limit? (Please note that I am not canvassing you to participate; just wondering, is all). Daicaregos (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting the template is not intervening in a admin capacity to the discussion, but fixing a rather unusual contravention of policy. As it happens, I've no intention of either intervening there or participating. I will say though that I think the best solution is probably to move the template to "sovereign states", which would remove the ambiguity and insult motivating the arguments there and bring stability to the page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Deacon, I've taken your idea (RM 'countries' to 'sovereign states') to WP:COUNTRIES & suggested it as a solution for all related templates, articles, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RM at Anne of Great Britain

Not exactly sure whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RM at Pulp Fiction

When you have a moment, could you please post your closing rationale to Talk:Pulp Fiction#Requested move to Pulp Fiction? I was watching that discussion a little bit and it's not obvious to me that there was consensus in favor of moving; it seems to be pretty borderline, though, so I think posting your rationale would be useful. I am not contesting the move itself (I didn't !vote or otherwise contribute to the discussion at all, so far as I remember), I would just like to see what your rationale was. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The greater part of opposition was based on using case for disambiguation, something not necessarily at issue (this would be down to whether Pulp fiction is a redirect to Pulp Fiction or else the dab page). Otherwise, I thought consensus was clear. I added a rationale per your request. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If I may, I found your rationale rather lacking, and confusing. You refer to "minority opposition" but as far as I can see it was 7-5 against. If you are discounting certain opposes (including mine) because they addressed case and not primary topic, I don't think that was appropriate. The issue of Primary Topic hadn't even been raised when I made my initial comment; it was clear at the time that the question at hand was whether disambiguating by case was sufficient. You seem to have decided that if case is not sufficient for disambiguation that pulp fiction should redirect to the movie's article (since those are the only two options you presented in your closing statement), but I cannot see how you can say there was a consensus for that view in the discussion. Powers T 14:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate an explanation if you get a chance. Powers T 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
In terms of a count, it was 6 registered users explicitly for and six explicitly against. The numbers themselves are of little importance however, as an WP:RM is a discussion not a count. Four opposes based their opposition on case not being enough to disambiguate. This isn't in policy, and it is a matter for the pulp fiction page in any case. Your own argument was that the genre was primary topic even for capitalization form, but the evidence cited by Station1 proved that to be incorrect. With 4 opposes irrelevant, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME proven, there was consensus to move the page. Hope this helps. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Station1 provided pageview statistics, which are not and never should be the sole determinant of what the primary topic is. And, as I mentioned above, you shouldn't discount the oppositions that were based on case, for two reasons: 1) case was the only issue under consideration for a good portion of the discussion, and 2) there is nothing a discussion at Talk:Pulp fiction can do to affect whether or not Pulp Fiction is a redirect or not. Everyone agrees pulp fiction is properly about the genre, so why should we discuss Pulp Fiction there? Powers T 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasions page

To initiate a discussion, and once an objection has been raised to a floated move on talk, then to proceed with it anyway pretty much violates the spirit of WP:Consensus at least as I understand it. A more civil response would have been to have responded on the talk and initiated a discussion. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you were uncivil, but no objection was raised. Please see WP:SILENCE. If I'm right in thinking that you yourself actually object, then you should state this explicitly, because people won't know otherwise. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd have thought my request on the talk page to see a source demonstrating that the Scottish/French subject link therefore meant that all subsequent invasions of Great Britain were invasions of England could have been considered an objection but perhaps that is just my differing viewpoint on the guidelines. We should probably focus on discussing the issue in question as I’m sure neither of us wants to get tied down in a process dispute.
My principle objection to the move is that the current title combined with the current contents seem to suggest that England is synonymous with GB/UK. One of the ironies of this seems to be that this was one of Brendandh's original objections as well, but one which the recent move did nothing to solve.
Sorry I haven’t responded sooner, I’ve been away from my computer. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Adam of Kilconquhar

The DYK project (nominate) 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediaeval help...

Hi Deacon,

I've started an article on Philip de Valoniis and would like some advice... Firstly, the information I lifted liberally from the Registrum de Panmure, but the dates for his becoming High Chamberlain don't match those in Great Chamberlain. Should I stick with the dates I have?

Also, I borrowed the infobox from another article, but I'm not convinced it's appropriate, being {{infobox_monarch}}. Is there a better template?

Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrow Acts of William I, p. 33: "the king was served in the office by only two different men, Philip de Valognes (1165–c.1171 and c.1193–1214) and Walter of Berkeley (c.1171–c.1193)". Barrow will be accurate on this matter.
Incidentally, thanks for writing this article. Would you mind if the article were moved to Philip de Valognes, as this is how he is normally called in modern historiography?
Have you seen Template:Infobox person? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Bettany Hughes

Hi Deacon. I've reverted your amendment to the Bettany Hughes article, as it is clearly incorrect: she is an academic historian, as can be easily verified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Can you verify it then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd have thought that Dr Hughes having recently taught a short course at the University of Cambridge's Institute of Continuing Education should qualify her: http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/components/tutors/?view=tutor&id=1963&cid=3610 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Being a tutor doesn't make one an academic, and I'd be dubious about interpreting such temporary gigs arranged by departments to attract more attention and money as evidence of professional recognition. It would depend on whether such things were a result of her work as a "historian" or as a media personality. Normally, a historian on tv is someone with a track record of research work which precedes a media career (as with Schama or Wood). The Wikipedia article is supposed to cover her source of notability; this seems quite clearly to be as a TV and Radio celebrity and popular writer; she has no notability as a historian as such, let alone as an academic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
'Being a tutor doesn't make one an academic'. Possibly not. The fact remains that she has a Doctorate, and has taught an historical subject at a highly-rated educational institute. I'd agree that she is more 'notable' for her media work, but I see this as no justification to exclude her academic qualifications. I have to ask whether there is any particular reason why you wish to exclude them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Qualifications don't make a person notable. Are we certain she has a doctorate anyway? Mistaken use of this title is very common. I wouldn't put my house on this unless you can get details of her thesis, and when she submitted it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The University of Cambridge website says she has a doctorate. She has been awarded a Research Fellowship at King's College London. That seems good enough for me. I've got better things to do with my time than go looking for her thesis.
You have yet to explain why you think her academic qualifications should not be noted in an article about her. I'd remind you that rules about WP:BLP also apply to talk pages. If you have any evidence that she has falsely claimed to hold qualifications she doesn't have, this isn't the appropriate place to discuss it, unless you can back it up with WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say she falsely claimed to have a doctorate, and in fact deliberately didn't comment on it [you are the one bringing it up yet again]. Yes, her name is written with the title "Dr" in front on a website with the Cambridge url. This in all likelihood was written by an office worker routinely assuming that all teaching-related employees over 35 are Drs. Having a doctorate should be easy to verify. I have no idea if she has one, and no reliable source I can find [including her own website] says so. If she had completed one, there is a high likelihood that--particularly because of her fame--she would have converted it into an academic monograph or articles; I can find no evidence of that either.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you seem to be correct, she doesn't seem to claim to have a doctorate. The Wikipedia article didn't say that either. Perhaps the Cambridge website is in error. I'm not going to quibble about the exact meaning of words like 'historian' or 'academic' though, at least until you explain why you think her widely-applauded work in bringing an academic approach to history to a wider audience shouldn't be noted. I'm of the opinion that what people do is more important than what letters they have before or after their name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right that it is ok to refer to her as an archaeologist or historian so long as it is not implied that this (rather than broadcasting) is the source of her notability. But, for instance, early undergraduate students need to be able to distinguish academic sources from ones with a different target audience, and it is no slight to her if they are assisted by being clear on this.
And, for what it is worth, the Oxford University library catalogue does not list a post-graduate thesis by her. The book on Helen of Troy appears to indicate that Oxford was her only source of higher education, and Oxford claim to keep and catalogue almost all post-graduate theses in their library. That might be suggestive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if her post-grad research didn't get completed, she won't have been the first or last in this...
I think we're basically in agreement now. The article needs to indicate her notability is as a broadcaster and writer on historical subjects, rather than implying and particular academic qualifications she doesn't have, though I don't think it did anyway. Actually, the whole article could probably do with a rewrite in any case. As for noting she got a 2:1, I think that is perhaps over-specific, and may not mean a great deal to the general readership, and could be taken to indicate she has done no further academic study, which is apparently untrue, judging by the Fellowship from King's. I'll maybe do a bit more research, and then look at the article again sometime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I was bored...

I present to you ... Pancartes. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Productive as ever, I see! Looks very good. I see the day soon when a template for all this stuff will be useful. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/November#Fact tag

How would I raise a RFC on this issue? MacStep (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you thought this was worth anything at this stage, then the details are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
And you you think you are right, within the policies and spirit? MacStep (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't know what you are trying to say Macstep. You'll need to be clearer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you think, within the policies and spirit of Wikipedia, your actions are above reproach and are you happy for the to be tested at an RFC ...or if there is a more appropriate venue...then there? MacStep (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit off topic for me...

So I'm going to ask you and Adam... do you know of any standard English-language work on the lives of various medieval cardinals? I ask as I'm slowly working on papal legates to England, and Walter of Albano is sorta kinda on my list to work on soon. HOwever, while I don't have problems with Salvator Miranda's site as a stop-gap, it's not going to pass muster at GA/FA level - but I don't read Italian so can't access many of his bibliographical works. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Turgot of Durham

Medieval Scottish clergymen should be your department I hope. I came across a reference in a 19th Century book by the Norwegian scholar Absalon Taranger that a certain Turgot, while on the run from William&al, became a trusted councillor of Olaf III of Norway. Taranger links this to Turgot of Durham, and makes a general reference to Symeon of Durham. If I'm not mistaken (I might very well be, my latin isn't just rusty, it's corroded completely away) this is mentioned in Hodgson-Hinde "Opera et collectanea" p. 95, to which H-H adds in a note " This account of the position and early life of Turgot is not from the Durham History, nor is it supported by any earlier authority." Does this ring any bells? If it doesn't, do you know where I could find Symeons account in an English translation? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Turgot is a man close to my phd research actually. This is from the Historia Regum , translated well over a century ago by Joseph Stevenson (here). You can buy this as a reprint from Llanerch, as A History of the Kings of England. Turgot wasn't Scottish btw, but was bishop of St Andrews for a bit. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected, clergyman (temporarily) active in Scotland then. "In this way Turgot had enough and to spare of good things flowing in upon him by the bounty of the king and noblemen. His soul was constantly stirred to contempt of the world; so that, avoiding festivities whenever he could, he indulged in solitary tears, beseeching God to direct him in the way of salvation. But as religious impulses often change when they are distracted, his soul by degrees declined from that state, attracted in the course of events by the pleasures of the world.", poor Turgot! Taranger didn't mention this part, I wonder why... Thanks for the link, most useful. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No probs. Glad to be of service. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Deacon, thank you very much for the barnstar. It's much appreciated. Best, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE case about Piotrus

Piotrus has written to my talk page about this. I have to ask, do you consider yourself an uninvolved admin for purposes of taking action on this case? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, he also lobbied Mkativerat. He'll pester people by email or tp until he either gets his way or it is obvious he won't. His desire for this should speak for itself. I've never heard of Dojarca and don't consider myself involved ... though I won't be blocking Piotrus or anything. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Block

With respect, I have to ask how you justify your block of User:AussieLegend. As was clearly indicated on the noticeboard, the user had already "stepped back", reflected on the inappropriateness of their action, and started an ANI thread to seek feedback on the situation. Considering all this, what made you think that you had to block that user in order to prevent them from further edit warring? I ask you to explain and reconsider the block. Regards, Swarm X 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He violated 3rr and was calling his opponents' edits vandalism. I don't see the ANI thread making any difference, but I wasn't actually aware of it when I closed the report on AN/3. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so you were simply unaware. That's reasonable, but I would ask you to review discussions going on in AN/3 threads in the future (the user explained their edits further, another user advised against a block and the ANI was indicated to). Swarm X 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As I explained to the user in an email, I did read the thread after the block and there was nothing that changed my decision. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I find that disappointing, but whatever. Not the end of the world, right? Swarm X 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ireland edit warring

What do you think of the argument that User:O Fenian and User:HighKing were also edit warring? Each only reverted once per article, I think, but that was a lot of articles... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They were for sure, although in their defense I'd say it was against a nothing-to-lose anon who was clearly not going to be doing any discussion. I'm gonna have a word with High King about his use of the term 'vandalism' (implied by 'rvv'). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for using 'rvv' in the edit summaries. On reflection it was inappropriate. At the time though I believed it was blatant vandalism - an anon IP mass-editing controversially and against the IMOS across multiple articles, with a particular trend of reverting edits by User:O Fenian. I've self-reverted that revert across all the articles, and reapplied the change using a more appropriate edit summary. --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks HighKing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for diligently following up on unblocking me when User:AussieLegend was unblocked for the purpose of maintaining. I still disagree with your block on me in the first place (for the reasons I've given), and it's clear that you probably disagree with his (and my!) unblocking, but your commitment to maintaining fairness is really appreciated. That can't have been an easy decision for you to do, and I don't doubt that you had other things to do also. Even if I was asleep at the time (heh, blocking me did help me get a good night's sleep for a change), I greatly appreciate it. -Danjel (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

My unblock was impulsive - while I don't believed it crossed the WW bright line I ought to have discussed it with you. Surprised at myself for being so impulsive, I am going to take a couple of days off to reflect. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a little impulsive, but I see how the appearance of my actions may have caused it. Put it down to experience and move on. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Robintetley

User got the auto block removed and just reverted back the edit with the comment from the forum posts on the bans web site. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progress_%28Take_That_album%29&diff=prev&oldid=402719125 - The addition is clearly not policy compliant and is also original research on a primary page. - Shall we just let him add it and ignore it, I am starting to ignore bad additions as removal of them when a user isn't bothered and just keeps putting them back has more risks of getting myself blocked than the repeat additioner that doesn't give any care apart from wanting to add whatever they want, this place is a joke - Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it's already been taken care of. Don't get too frustrated btw ... Wikipedia is just like this sometimes. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate your pointing that out. Thanks Deacon. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I apologize for taking awhile to respond. I've left you a message on my talk page.--Piast93 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ivar and his talk

There seem to have been some confusion in moving Ivar back, the article and the talk page isn't at the same place (I think) - I'm rather confused how this could have happened :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hashshashin

Hello, Deacon. Could you explain where you found consensus for the move at Talk:Assassins#Requested move? Several people specifically opposed moving to the undisambiguated name. Powers T 13:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Only one registered account explicitly opposed such a move. Pretty straightforward decision as these things go. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether the account was registered? Powers T 14:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
And besides, both AjaxSmack and I opposed the move to Assassins without disambiguator, as did Johnbod by omission. Powers T 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ganges to Ganga move proposal.

This is with reference to your action at talk:Ganges.[2], since I am unaware of the procedure, I asked what the import of the action was and I received reply from the one of the keep editors that it meant that the move proposal was overruled.[3].

  • What is the criteria for acting on a move proposal?
  • Have you gone through the debate in detail and dealt on the various issues pro move and pro keep?
  • Can your decision be appealed, what is the procedure?
  • If the move proposal is closed, why hasn't the tag been removed?
  • What is the minimum time period that has to pass before another move proposal can be brought up?
  • My locus standi in asking so many questions is that I am the proposer of the move.
  • Thanks in anticipation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Piast93

I wouldn't let up on him if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. His behavior is somewhat reminiscent of Loosmark. At any rate he's clearly not a new editor, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's avoiding some block. Volunteer Marek & Piotrus seem to be "protesting too much" as well. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

An article you created ...

... is now an FA. I hope that it's at least close to what you had in mind for it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when I started it I had no intent or hopes for it beyond a better written version of the short article you first encountered. :) Congrats Malleus on the work! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season...

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ealdgyth. Hope you had a good one too! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks John. Happy New Year to you too! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent focus

Deacon, you had refrained from engaging with Piotrus for quite some time, which I think was good for both of you given your history of disputes. Lately, you've gone back to turning up at discussions about Piotrus and made a number of rather personal remarks either about Piotrus, or in the most recent case, about NewyorkBrad as well. For some reason this particular dispute seems to lead you to make remarks that are out of character for your usually respectful and productive comments. I hope you'll reconsider your return to this dispute and just let sleeping dogs lie. Shell babelfish 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shell. I merely offer light criticism of NYB, and hope I wasn't disrespectful. :) Regarding Piotrus, are you friends in real life[4]? I do respect people standing up for their friends, but in all fairness I am the one who actually has the good track record here. When we had that email correspondence all that time ago, and you tried to convince me I was wrong about what Piotrus was doing, I told you you didn't need to listen to me ... all you needed to do was just to wait; and then EEML was revealed. That I think tells the story here. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's just Ragesoss taking pictures of a bunch of people at the 10th anniversary meetup, so first time I'd met anyone there, but thanks for letting me know the pictures were up :) As for our previous discussions, they've been pretty much on the same subject - you seem to take this particular dispute personally and in particular have a long history of less than optimal interactions with Piotrus. It's time to let it go. Shell babelfish 00:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In truth I'm just trying to help Wikipedia; all you're doing now really is making personal accusations against me against for telling it the way I see it. I'll note that this is a brave thing to do when it is I who has continually been proven on this matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Standard Chinese

Thank you for closing that move request. It's good to finally get it done. I asked for, and got, indefinite move protection on it while we waiting to get the move request closed (as I had no idea how long that would take). When I asked for I said "indefinite on the understanding it would be removed after the requested move had been closed". Could you take a look and see whether you think it's now worth removing. Dpmuk (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive_XXI&oldid=408495723"