This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Deor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Hi - youve been doing all those edits and no one has thanked you for your hard work? Hope you enjoy wikipedia! SatuSuro 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right - the west australian literary tradition is about zilch on wikipedia - so even one typo correction gets me interested... SatuSuro 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My oldest teenager is on WOW I cannot look at pdfs at the moment :) - I am in regular contact with one sf prson here in perth though - you should put something about yourself (however revealing or obscure dosnt matter) on your user page so it doesnt stick out as red all the time SatuSuro 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the articles for the Arkham House publications. I've reviewed the changes you've made so hopefully I won't make the same mistakes going foreward. Obviously, style is not my strong suit. I do check the Manual of Style, but only when I'm unsure of something. Anyway, thanks again for the edits.-- Rtrace 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to WUSTL articles or that you are in some way connected to Washington University in St. Louis. I thought you might want to become a member of Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject . We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve articles in the WUSTL series. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

--
Lmbstl 11:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deor,

We've been having a bit of an edit skirmish on Celestial Spheres. Please see my comments there. -- SteveMcCluskey 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. James Nicol 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tina Blue's writing ain't very good itself. (She also doesn't know the difference between The Bob Newhart Show & Newhart.) She basically makes a blanket statement w/out providing any reasons of substance or grammar. Thank you, Deor, for the link & for trying to communicate, but I provided you w/ a grammatical reason for the comma. I'm sorry that you didn't like the reason, but pace Tina Blue, that don't make it wrong. (The comma, by the way, I have removed, along w/ the phrase "his friend": The article says, earlier, that Guy & Kenner knew each other; that will have to do.) James Nicol 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Deor, what are you talking about? The link was to some old changes that SocJan asked me to make. I summarized them that way as a joke to him. James Nicol 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Let's talk about Davenport instead. What do you think of his work--any part of it to start with? James Nicol 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for your thoughts on Davenport. His work is what matters more than our fuss about the wiki-article about him. James Nicol 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deor, there was no deletion debate. Someone stated that Laurence Scott wasn't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I provided reasons that he was, and then, someone, w/out further ado, deleted the article. That's not a debate, and is this really how you want Wikipedia to work?

Did you read the article? Is it really taking up much too much Wikispace? Do you think that it's not worth any? If so, then please tell me why. James Nicol 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's biting me, Deor, but it's interesting that you cannot explain your actions. Why are you so angry? Wikipedia is for the sharing of information, not simply the enforcing of rules. I shared some information about an interesting person. Where is the problem? Please try to answer my questions or don't bother writing back. Thanks. James Nicol 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

James, did you even read the AFD log for the Laurence Scott article? Did you click on the links within there about what constitutes nobility? I nominated the article for AFD (anyone can do this). During this standard process, there was a tag on the top of the article (similar to the one on it now) with a link to a discussion that is open for five days that anyone can participate in. Why don't you try doing a bit of research on why your article may have been a candidate for deletion, instead of accusing people of having some vendetta against your article. IT WAS NOT NOTABLE. See WP:BIO for more information. There is a new page of articles nominated each day that go through this process, why don't you take the time and look at these yourself. You might even find a link that shows you how to contest a deletion, rather than wasting time going to our user pages and making accusations with silly references about pulling triggers and telling others to "shoot!"? Betaeleven 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deor, yes, I posted this on his user page, as well. I apologize for the confusion and adding more on your own page. Betaeleven 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you reverted in Évariste Galois. But somehow the text that was deleted in this was not reinserted. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. If intentional than you have to re-delete it, sorry about that. If it was an error perhaps you want to look into on of the automated reversion tools like WP:TWINKLE or Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Those tools are really helpful. Bye! Sander123 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved the article " Sonnetology" to " Sonnet studies" and nominated Category:Sonnetology for a speedy-move to Category:Sonnet studies. I'm sorry about this mix-up...I've fixed it all now I hope! -- WassermannNYC 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deor, I posted some thoughts at deletion review. Thanks for the advice. I hope that we can leave Laurence Scott his few paragraphs. How much wikispace does it take up? James Nicol 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deor, what are you talking about? The link was to some old changes that SocJan asked me to make. I summarized them that way as a joke to him. James Nicol 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Let's talk about Davenport instead. What do you think of his work--any part of it to start with? James Nicol 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for your thoughts on Davenport. His work is what matters more than our fuss about the wiki-article about him. James Nicol 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deor, how could you possibly declare my edits "interfering" while yours, coming much after mine, showing no knowledge of Davenport or his work, you describe as simply "edits". If there's interfering, the it's on your side, but let's calm down. I read what you did. I checked each of the links you questioned, and I restored some of them, offering reasons. Why do you want to eliminate the link on the quince? James Nicol 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Deor: I have been trying to contribute to the Guy Davenport entry, and more recently to the nascent Laurence (H.) Scott entry, but I seem to be caught in crossfire not of my making. The Guy Davenport page was enormously improved several seasons back when Nicol and other former students of Davenport put a great deal of time into it. Nicol is rightly proud of the level to which he brought it. While he and I have not always agreed on changes to the entry, we have exchanged email addresses and then carried out our discussions directly with each other, and thus much less publicly and acrimoniously than what seems to be happening lately. Is there any chance that you can all calm down a bit? In any case, please leave me out of it. I respect Nicol's work and invite him to criticize mine. Please grant that my willingness to be civil to and supportive of Nicol does not justify making me a target of anyone's frustration. -- SocJan 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a WP:3RR warning on Nicol's talk page.-- SethTisue 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Halogen Software article is better now. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halogen Software. -- Eastmain 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a another look at the section on harp seals as I just rewrote it. I wasn't sure that either versionwas too clear on the migration and wanted to see if that was any better. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have proded the books by this author as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Alcorn (author) ... you might want to keep an eye on them as well. — 68.239.79.97 ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dior

I am trying to deal with your objection to my proposed article on Lily Goddard. I believe she is notable as she was 1) a three times published poet and author - some of which work appears in other documents on the web 2) she was a commercial textile designer with a very significant amount of original designs manufactured into textiles 3) She was granted Fellowship of the Chartered Society of Designers.

I am very new to editing and may not be doing things correctly - I am trying to wade through the help texts. What should I do next - I have tried to add a citation to her page. - Regards Larry

Thankyou for your advice - apologies - I will try harder ....

Larry Goddard 18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note on User talk:Ryulong. Thank you for tagging a certain biography stub for deletion. I agree with you and Ryulong, who has deleted this article, that it was inappropriate, and I have left a note specifically asking the author not to restore it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

*chagrined* Oops. I have to admit, I don't really understand the reasoning behind that rule being the way it is (certainly not how I was taught things) but I guess from now on I'll have to work on keeping my inner grammarian in check. Sorry. Thanos6 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

article rewritten with better writing, sourcing. Journalist1983 02:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged that page and the user reverted, so he knows he's been caught. I guess it's best to assume good faith though... LuciferMorgan 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that you have not done your research regarding both the Aerial variety of gorilla, and the declining years of Thomas S. Savage. As you putter about, making your small emendations, be sure to steer clear of those conflicts which may make you look like a mere pedant, or some other subspecies of depressing old man.

Deor, thank you for the revision made by the anon. user. Please review the note I have made in the talk section of the page and if you have any questions to the notability of the article, please let me know, i am more than willing to get further in depth as to why i feel this is a valid wiki article. Collectivistgallery 06:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: thanks for the prompt response, and I understand your concern for quality on wikipedia, however, the only sources that are available for citing that is viewable online are the ones that have been listed. that does not mean however that there are not more, namely art journals, gallery press releases, public artist support of the gallery etc. These are just not in digital form so the citing would end up being removed for lack of evidence, so i am slightly in a quandry here. Any suggestions? I feel that since this article is still a work in progress the request for speedy deletion is a bit overkill, Since the reason for speedy deletion is CSD A7, and i find it hardly fair that one person, on the day in which the article was created, can justify the article as being unimportant. Like i said, if you have any suggestions for the citations that would be great, and if you could consider removing the Speedy deletion tag for the time being while we get this sorted out, that would be amazing. thanks.

• I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for reverting the vandalism to Cross country running and your vandal fighting activities. Where, as here, they have received a last warning it would be helpful you would report the matter to WP:AIV. HTH. TerriersFan 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TerriersFan. I only occasionally report school IPs to AIV, and then only if there's an ongoing spate of vandalism at the time. The edit to Cross country running was the first of the day from that IP, and it's been my experience that the admins at AIV will usually refuse to block in such a case. (Actually, I seldom even slap vand tags on school IP talk pages anymore; there are so many there already, so what's the point of another.) Deor 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Neat points, thanks. Personally, I am in favour of escalating blocks on school pages to stir their administration into action. The approach I adopt, as here, is in the case of the shorter blocks to permit account creation which allows legitimate editors to create an account. Having said that, if you revert vandalism by a user to whom I have given a level 3 or 4 warning it would be helpful, as an alternative to going to AIV, to message me and I will sort it. TerriersFan 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can delete the lead, but why do you delete the Mythology part? Lllo3

You're correct, and I apologize -- I didn't realize other articles could be folded into an AfD. I'll withdraw my nom. Groupthink 02:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch on Sendla OS. Can you add Motron Software to that AfD nom as well? Groupthink 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but eidon is the (second) aorist of a defective verb, of which the present active is οράω; it can be listed there, or under ειδω, as LSJ does; I have seen it under είδον. It still is a lousy article.

Regards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Flex#Toronto_church_and_ministries. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 17:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: Thanks for the alert. Another admin found that one, along with several other accounts, and has blocked them all. It appears that his favorite target pages have been semi-protected once again. -- Gogo Dodo 05:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad there are people out there like you who hate people who just vandalize articles. T.Nguyen092 02:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deor, your comment at the AfD gave me enough info to find some sources. Thanks for setting me in the right direction. If you have some time, I'd appreciate it if you looked at the article, though, it could stand some improvement and you seem to have more knowledge of the subject than I do. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deor, no rush on this. When I encountered it a little while ago it looked like someone's original research project to me; now that I see this concept has influence beyond Augustine, I don't think there's an urgent need to fix it right away. I guess I'm hypersensitive because of the strange OR projects I've been seeing in other articles. Thanks for looking into this. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deor, please advise us your Wikipedia administrative Status? ( User:martynwg)

I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, if that's what you mean. Deor 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides an opportunity to gather information on anything and everything.

This information can be provided by anyone in the world that has access to the Internet, which makes Wikipedia the excellent source of knowledge it is.

The information is dynamic and can be moderated by those who know the subject personally.

If a subject does not initially meet Wikipedia guidelines it does not mean that the content is invalid. Leaving a valid but incomplete subject alone will encourage additions from others who have personal knowledge of the subject together with further additions from the initial editor.

A subject will never be complete because there will always be someone somewhere with information to provide.

Editors will best serve Wikipedia from refraining from hurriedly tagging for deletion items they have no personal knowledge of.

Ardent policing of Wikipedia will defeat its objective in that it will become a narrow and over moderated environment.

I suggest Deor that you refrain from tagging subjects for deletion without making prior enquiries with the original editor as to why they deemed the subject valid for inclusion.

Many editors do not have surplus time to devote to Wikipedia but we want to ensure that the valuable information we have is not lost so recording it in a timely fashion for others to pick up the thread would seem to be one of the valuable aspects of subscribing to Wikipedia.

Please leave subjects alone that you are not familiar with. Martynwg 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For your information, any user of Wikipedia may tag an article for speedy deletion when it meets one of the criteria set forth in WP:CSD (the specific reason I tagged your articles is item 7 under "Articles"). The actual deletion of an article so tagged is the work of an administrator, who reviews the article to be sure that it meets the criterion before deleting it. If you're wondering why the articles you created were unsuitable for Wikipedia, I suggest that you read WP:N and WP:V, which should make things clear. Deor 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly prefer to be a Wikipedia policeman rather than a humble editor and if your tags are endorsed by an administrator than I guess many of us will reduce our efforts to make Wikipedia the excellent source of information it has been until now. Martynwg 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated Trick Son & Lloyd, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Trick Son & Lloyd satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trick Son & Lloyd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( Martynwg 04:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)). You are free to edit the content of Trick Son & Lloyd during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Deor 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have made this personal, which confirms that your ego is more important than Wikipedia so I will make a complaint about you to the administrators.

The Poem Deor is not noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia so will you be tagging that too? Martynwg 04:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Heheh. Fine compliment on AfD. Thank you. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Why am I not surprised? It's probaby that anon from Wesleyan who gets so upset when I delete anything, who decided to create something out of whole cloth and then snigger about it. Nice sleuth work. Corvus cornix 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent. Corvus cornix 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I just told Jim Dunning that his assumption of good faith is much stronger than mine. We must rely on reliable sources, or the stuff has to go. Corvus cornix 22:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Correcting Damage from Hoax Dear sir,

Mr. Dunning has been fully made aware of the situtation, and I am working with Wikipedia to help sort this matter out. There are now also privacy issues. This foolish boy based his ID on Mr. Barbaro's Ebay information. Please sir, I understand your feelings, and I would feel just like you do. but let me help to fix things. Only material that pertained to this boys hoax removed. I thank you for your kind understanding.

65.54.98.30 has now been blocked for repeated Talk page blanking. But I expect any of his sockpuppets to show up any time now. Corvus cornix 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am contacting you because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, which resulted in the deletion of Francesco Dionigi. A new article has been created about the same person, Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro. I have nominated it for deletion, and you may wish to read the new article and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I want you to be aware that the original Barbaro family page has been vandalized and replaced with this bad one. I am reporting to you because I think Wikipedia editors may be involved in trying to destroy this page. I don't know their motives. But I have checked many of those sources and they did have the previous info in them. I thought that I should make a formal complaint to the head of Wikipedia about what some of these editors may be doing. I noticed that they have kept the public out as well. It seems like some Wikipedia eitors are up to something no good. I thought someone should know

I moved the above material from this problem newby from your User page. Sorry for the intrusion. WBardwin 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to delete that article. Good catch; next time you see something like that, go on and tag it with {{ db-afd}}. -- Core desat 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert that?-- Hornetman 16 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He is a born-again Christian [1]-- Hornetman 16 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How's this? [2]-- Hornetman 16 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say hat if your a Christian and have been Baptized, as I'm sure C.S. Lews was, you're a Born-Again Christian.-- Hornetman 16 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your most timely correction. So that is what that thing is called. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Two places with the same name. India has a large number of villages and many places do have the same name.--( Sumanth| Talk) 05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your keep vote, this article has major sourcing concerns. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Deor, your remarks give welcome testimony that someone reads these pages, which otherwise I might have doubted, given the quality of the materials I set out to alter, which looked as if they derived from handbooks compiled before The World War (not the second). Given the fossil nature of the comments & the rather limited bibliography, it did not seem likely that any talk had transpired in these parts for a considerable period of time, maybe ever. Thus your comment about using TALK page for consensus, while in principle laudable & appropriate for such a promiscuous site, seemed in fact gratuitous in view of the evidence of disengagement. Also, at this point, I don't quite understand how to make TALK work, hence this laborious typing where e-mail would have been the right way. Sicelidas 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of different tags for Virgil's book of ten eclogues, the following deserves notice IF the present medium has any claim to authority as opposed to mechanical repetition of common notions:

Since the title Bucolics, clearly credits his debt to The­o­cri­tus, use of Eclogues as a name for Virgil’s book has been rightly called “unfortun­ate.” [Oxford Classical Dictionary (19993)1604a, by Don & Peta Fowler; Virgil’s use of The­o­cri­tus’ title also recognized by Richard Hunter, Theocritus A Selection, 5]

While it is true that tradition has often committed a kind of metonymy, using the label of the parts, 'eclogues' to stand for the whole book, this metonymy has been especially pernicious because it occluded the fact that Virgil did construct a single book (unus liber as an ancient commentator calls it). In this regard, the Virgilian Encyclopedia does a better job of reporting. Sicelidas 02:57, 31 July 2007

I was a bit confused and annoyed when you reverted my restoration of the apostrphe, then gratified and amused when you corrected yourself. Happy editing! Mdotley 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a bit abrupt, I know, but I thought I had consensus with the other user and the nom.-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the anonymous multiple-IP user persists in adding his/her POV-riddled BLP-violating material into the Ramsey Campbell article, which, as far I'm concerned, is clearly vandalism, it would be best to request to have the page "locked" from use by anonymous and/or new editors to avoid further edit warring. This is something to consider if the antics continue.- Hal Raglan 01:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understood what I meant on the EHWR talk page. There is no AfD discussion for EHWR. It does not have its own AfD page. The AfD tag links to the Alpha Omega discussion, which is independent of EHWR. If an article marked as being up for deletion discussion, shouldn't it have its own AfD segment instead of linking to something different? It wasn't vandalism. It was removing a tag that had been improperly placed. La Bicyclette 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Any activity, however innocent, can become spam when repeated indefinitely. Three requests for elaboration is more than enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! We both seem to be fighting a vandal here. Anyway, do my warnings on his talk page seem sufficient, or should the user be reported as a vandalism only account? Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Deor, just for Chaser's convenience, i.e. if was curious where the discussion went, I indicated that we moved the discussion to my talk page and continued discussing there. I hope that's okay. In any case, I think I see your points and have refrained from posting in additional AfDs for the time being. I wish that nom of the song AfD would have included that link to the original articles as well in the nom, but no big deal. Thanks and have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that, I thought I had reverted all of the current vandalism, but hadn't actually looked over the page. Keep up the good work and happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do you have any idea what is going on here? The ips that edited just after the article was unprotected seem to be the exact same ones that were involved in the previous kerfuffle. Note this User:Save venice is claiming that the Vitus Barbaros are real persons... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems there may have been a confusion between genuine hoaxers and those who were using incorrect or obscure sources regarding the Barbaro debacle. I think Save venice is in the latter group so hopefully they can be trusted to edit with a little guidance (please respond here). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, Gustav. A few of SV's edits have been suspiciously close, even in details of wording, to previous edits by Tiki-two in the same articles, and his peculiar spelling and grammatical tics are also reminiscent of some of the problem "friends of Vitus." If he is Tiki-two (or one of his supporters, if they weren't all the same person), though, he seems to have decided to change his tactics from the old insistent editing/reverting and talk-page ranting, which is a relief. In any event, SV's approach to sourcing seems rather cavalier, and I think his edits will continue to require some scrutiny. Deor 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from your user page: I suggest you read Gustav von Humpelschmupel talk page. This family is completely documented, including Vitus and Antonio. Moreover, you are going to tell me that Yale doesn't have a doctotral program in art history where someone can't focus on Venetian Studies? Excuse me!?

Vitus is a real person that someone took and made up a bunch of lies about. They saw his name and Transylvania and decided to create some bogus Dracula article about him- get over it. it is time to get off the Vitus case- there is no case. Thank youSave venice 02:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Into The Fray ^T/ C 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, I see what is going on here, you are talking among yourselves about some sort of conspiracy. I will not be a part of this any longer. If the red links remain, I may or may not expand, but this Wikikpedia is just too crazy for my taste. I was wondering why my work on Villa Pojana and Villa Foscari went smoothly, and this Barbaro page required so much explanation. You guys aren't interested in Venetian History- you are just playing some game- Please do not waste my time talking any longer on these talk pages. If I do work on Wikipedia, and source my material and it is removed, I will just walk for good, and here I though you were interested in understanding true Venetian history. Save venice 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro family talk page needs to be started fresh. Giano has completey walked away from editing, according to his own comments- read Gustav- becasue of making a complete mistake on the judgement call of the whole so called "Barbaro Hoax". It needs to be blanked- to much confussion based on misinformation has been created by this all- it is perpetuating nonsense, and talk pages have been blanked before. When something is wrong, the right thing to do is set things right by starting fresh. Do not revert blanking, and don't just say it is Wikipedia policy- becasue what I can clearly see is that nothing accoring to the Barbaro family page was ever treated appropriately. Enough is Enough with the attacks on this family's history and especially on Vitus. Save venice 03:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue to have nonsense that only fuels rediculous claims- If you read Gustav's talk page Giano has walkde away becaus ehe knows that he was wrong about the Barbaro page- Gustav is not even addressing my talk page because he also knows that he was wrong. It is time to start fresh- and in this case it is the reasonable thing to do. There is nothing wrong with the page as it is, and it is time to stop fueling rumors of hoaxs with Barbaro. Somone took a real barbaro person and started a fake page about him, and there is no reason to perpetuate nonsense any more- there is nothing illegit about anything on this page- and should have the good judgement to realize that this is a unique situation- have a little understanding, rules sometimes should be broken- Barbaro needs to start fresh. Save venice 04:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the value of countless talk about hoaxes and questioning when that is not even relevant to what is on the page now. It is time to return to normality. Reverting to nonsense is irrational Save venice 04:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote Villa Foscari, Villa Pojana, Palazzo Barbaro, Palazzo Dario, and corrected this page. If Wikipedia values an expert on Venetian culture than stop being a hard nose about a rule and have some perspective on what is best for the article and for Wikipedia. Please stop reverting back to nonsense that only causes confusion. Don't you want to move on, Giano and Gustav have. Leave the page alone with a clean sheet and it is done- let go. Thank you Save venice 04:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the nonsense is catalogued in its history if needed to refer to- but leaving it attached to an article that it doesn't enlighten is not relevant. Why do you pick with Barbaro- I have seen other pages blanked. Be fair. Save venice 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a request; could you stop by the talk page and chime in about the sources? -- Haemo 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Giano has far from given up on this subject, and please stop reverting talk pages. You have already broken the 3 revert rule. Giano 08:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Deor. I think SV's erratic behaviour may have somewhat been caused by our assumption that they were the same person who made the hoax articles previously. I think what they claim is that the person responsible for those hoaxes was a former employee (though I have a suspicion it might be child of/grandchild of) S (ebastiano) Barbaro and now this is either a family member or another employee trying to put the "right" information up. I don't really think that Mr. S or Mr. V Barbaro are notable enough for their own encyclopedia article or even to be mentioned in the Barbaro article. If we can establish that there are some other Barbaros that were notable from the "enciclopedia storico nobiliare italiana" then we could include that information in the Barbaro article. The problem is getting hold of that multi-volume tome. As far as I can see it is only found in a few places in the U.S. and Italy and perhaps France, but I doubt it is in the UK as it is not even in the British Library. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Gustav is trying to gloss over the points made on his talk page that I wrote- and others should go over there and read what I wrote. Also, I am who I say I am- stop spreading lies about me. Now, if no one wants to take responsibility to step up to fix this stupid prank- after I set up a complete step by step guidline on what to do- than live with your own insecurities- and face up to that being the real issue- you are unsure of yourselves- but stop being cowards and saying BS about me. I have created accurate work based on reliable sources- and I told you specifically to leave those two as red links because I wanted to check their bios fully before any page is written about them. Now, if you are afraid to face me by shutting me out- than so be it- and if you are too afraid to set things right- than so be it, but let's call the kettle black. Gustav goes and puts a minor coat of arms reference up- well, you had a stupendous arms explanation on the original page that you sent me- obviously that point was correct and then some. So, come on now, the real issue is lack of spine to go back and revert properly- that is all that it is and nothing more, and if you don't have the spine to do that- than I don't care, but stop saying BS about me or implying behind my back that I am the hoaxer- please grow up. Save Venice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.43 ( talk) 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, any time. I'm just glad to help. -- RattleMan 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tidying it up now. The other articles are going to be deleted. This is the recommendation of the 3rd opinion talk:The Cardiff Team Tony 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Tony

SilkTork's third opinion at THE CARDIFF TEAM talk page most definitely did not recommend that disputed plot summaries at CARDIFF TEAM be moved to the Guy Davenport page, and certainly not the APPLES AND PEARS plot summary that, after an RfC, another editor recently deleted from the A + P page!

This is what SilkTork actually said talk:The Cardiff Team about the disputed Cardiff Team plot summaries:

I see little advantage in the listing of the plot lines of each story. The sources do not go into such detail. A few well chosen sentences to sum up the text would be more appropriate, and that could possibly be done in a paragraph within the Guy Davenport article.

I would welcome Deor's support for deleting, as SilkTork recommended, the OR summaries of story and novella plots that have now been inserted into the Davenport page. Then, if someone can write the "few well chosen sentences to sum up" these texts that SilkTork recommended, I would have no objection. SocJan 09:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

tieLeaf is notable. It consists of a famous singer, Haruka Shimotsuki and two other people. Everyone knows about tieLeaf! I even have sources. Please let the article stay up, It is very notable and it is not made up. It is real. I even asked to create the article on Talk:Haruka Shimotsuki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir aaron sama girl ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing the job! I had (wrongly, it seems) assumed that TW would take care of that bit. Mayalld 13:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya,

Are you able to enable email on your account? Thanks!

(Security / spam note - enabling email doesn't reveal your email to anyone else. Unless you actually reply to them their only contact is via "Email this user" which can be disabled any time)

Thanks :)

FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Enabled, I think. Deor 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you changed the nationality in the infobox to call him Scottish; however, in RLS' time, as now, there was no Scottish nationality and Scots like myself had British nationality. I hope that makes sense to you. -- John 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)