User talk:Prosfilaes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Selective archive (use the history button for the rest)
[edit] Link Spammer Warning
I note that you have warned anonymous user 69.157.90.19 to refrain from link spamming the female ejaculation article. This IP address is just one of a series of similar addresses, all but one belonging to one provider, that are constantly used to spam a number of articles with links to commercial porn sites. I'm still a bit new and have preferred to focus my time on actually editing articles rather than figuring out the process to go through to attempt to have link spammers' IP addresses banned, but since I see you've issued a final warning for this particular IP address I'd like to take the opportunity to bring the others that are probably being used by the same person to your attention:
- 65.57.106.46: Contributions / Talk
- 65.95.72.245: Contributions / Talk
- 69.157.88.199: Contributions / Talk
- 69.157.90.19: Contributions / Talk
- 69.157.91.250: Contributions / Talk
Hope you can help. Thanks.
--Craig (t|c) 06:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
I saw your comments about vandalism on your user page and I'm inclined to agree. I'm convinced that Wikipedia could eliminate at least half of the vandalism on the english site by running a bot which reverted based on three combined factors: a)IP address (anon account); b)Empty edit summary; c)Removal of either a section header and at least 50 words, or removal of at least 50 words without a section header. I'm sure I'm not the first one to come up with this idea, but if you're interested in doing something about it, let me know. There is no reason someone should be removing 50 words without an edit summary (and we could also add that the edit summary box should be emphasized; currently it is merely wikilinked without any encouragement to use it). --Viriditas 12:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My essay on Esperanto
I don't quite understand why you accuse me of not mentioning threatened languages in my little piece on Esperanto. I mention Mari, and at the end give MAFUN as an example of a good cause. Due to some of my studies I am especially sympathetic to the plight of the Uralic languages. That said, I should mention that I don't really care whether Wikipedia keeps my article linked (some anonymous person first put up a link in the German Wikipedia and then it spread elsewhere). CRCulver 16:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Severus Snape
Hi, I think troubled is much better than tense, although I am beginning to think the whole sentence is beginning to sound like they need marriage guidance. I would agree that the first time I read the word fraught I laughed at seeing it there, but it has grown on me. I think people should be exposed to new words. Make it a link to a definition? (not really a serious suggestion.) I didn't think tense had the right meaning, and actually now that we are arguing about it, fraught is exactly what their relationship is. The meaning of troubled seems to be somewhere between the two, on a scale of escalating trauma. Sandpiper 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AD pre-/post-pend in Common Era article
Hi:
I came across the dispute between you and Jeff3000 in the Common Era article. As it happens, Jeff3000 is backed up by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Era, and a variant of this directive was added into that part of the manual of style as early as July 5, 2004 by Gdr.
I hope this helps. I will keep your talk page watchlisted for the next three days, in case you wish to respond here.
— DLJessup (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ;)
ok; thank you for your comment
[edit] ;)
ok; than you for your comment
[edit] A question about your edit on the USS Liberty Incident
I noticed that you made the following comment when deleting my addition to the USS Liberty Incident:
"new sentence uncited, especially as used by Israel; it's not NPOV and the incident wasn't that similar"
Perhaps I was adding it to the wrong section, but I do think it is important to mention the USS Stark incident. I did not mean that it was mechanically similar incident. However, it was an unprovoked attack on an American vessel by a MidEast nation during a time of war. Much of the anti-Israel rhetoric in the Liberty controversy uses an exceptionalism argument: that this attack is a special case, when indeed an almost identical incident occurred years later. What would be the proper way to mention this in the article?
[edit] Suntzu
It came from http://www.hernandofla.com/greats4.htm, it seemed legitimate to me. But i agree with your caution. Trying to help, --Larsinio 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Politeness - reply
Dear Prosfilaes - if I say your argument lacks logic that is not rude. I fully understand that your perception of logic and reality differ severely from mine. I am not making a value jugdement about this fact. I am just not the right person for you to discuss this with. I took on the job of defending the Babel-concept because I accidently stumbled upon the deletion-discussion of en-5 and nobody else seemed to be around who could have given a reasonable judgement. That is annoying enough as it is. I am not going to discuss this further because it makes no sense to me, sorry. Not because I do not want to talk to you but because the template is unsalvageable, so there is no more reason for me to dedicate time to discussing it. I hope you are not mad at me but my Wikipedia-time budget does not allow me to have discussions that lead nowhere (that is cannot possibly lead to the saving of template en-5). The Babel project will have to find other solutions to make up for the lack of scale xx-5 in the English language.
Also, the research-issue with another user, where you found my comment impolite: there are ways to research the basics (in this case looking at the babel-page, the info this person should have read is right on top, no need even for scrolling). If a user does not have basic information and refuses to get them, he or she should in my opinion not be voting. While some people just find it fun to troll around on deletion pages, this is not a place I regularly go to. Their actions (deleting a needed template just for fun) just shock me and of course make my work here harder. We have the right to free speech, I am allowed to say that I am annoyed by that. --Fenice 11:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Theodore7
A number of editors started an RfC against User:Theodore7 here. I though you might wanted to know. Cheers, R.Koot 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polygamy
Please see my comments on Talk:Polygamy. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re Nevsky Prospekt
Hi Prosfilaes! I don't want an editing war with you. Nevsky Prospekt is most commonly written with a "k", not a "c". I've just been changing those fairly few spelled with "c", so they line up with the majority, which were spelled with "k". Just so you understand my motive. Currently the article about the street itself is spelled with "c", but I'm planning to switch that one to the "k" spelling redirect, and then make the "c" space a redirect instead. And I'll leave "Nevsky Avenue" alone avs a redirect. Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that you've done it again, and I guess I can see the point when referring to the English title of the book. However, otherwise the spelling should be Prospekt. See discussion on the page about the street, also see the official English website for the street: Nevsky Prospekt official website. Regards Thomas Blomberg 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. According to the recognised transliteration tables for Cyrillic to English or to the Latin alphabet in general (all except BGN/PCGN can be found under Romanization of Russian), Невский проспект should be written:
- "Nevskiǐ Prospekt" - ALA-LC, i.e. the standard established by America Library Association & Library of Congress 1997.
- "Nevskij Prospekt" - GOST 16876-71 (Russian standard from 1983), ISO 9 (1995), and the United Nations romanization system from 1987. NOTE: These three standards are not Cyrillic to English, but Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet, no matter which language.
- "Nevskiy Prospekt" - BGN/PCGN, i.e. the standard developed by the US and the UK 1947 for geographical names.
- At the end of the Wikipedia article there is an additional table for "Conventional transcription of Russian names" (not fully accepted by everyone on the discussion side), which says that the ий combination should normally be "iy", but whenever they are the commonly/historically accepted convention "y" or "i" can be used (a typical example is that "Trotsky" is the accepted English spelling of Троцкий.
- In addition to all this, Wikipedia has established its own naming convention: Wikipedia:Transliteration of Russian into English. According to that table, which is a modification of BGN/PCGN, Невский проспект should be written "Nevskiy Prospekt" or "Nevsky Prospekt", i.e. they also accept the older "y" for ий when that has become the established convention.
- As you can see, the only possible debate regarding this street name is if it should be "Nevskiǐ", "Nevskij", "Nevskiy" or "Nevsky". All agree that проспект (meaning "avenue") should be "Prospekt". The English word "prospect" (outlook) has nothing to do with it, except being the reason why people think "Prospekt" is a misspelling. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. According to the recognised transliteration tables for Cyrillic to English or to the Latin alphabet in general (all except BGN/PCGN can be found under Romanization of Russian), Невский проспект should be written:
[edit] Pseudo-science Pejorative
Why did you remove this sentence:
-
- Terms such as "alternative" and "non-orthodox" express the same concept without being pejorative.
It seems a fair, and probably widely held, criticism. Although personally I think that those terms don't do most pseudo-sciences justice (pseudo-science is a kind description, "bs" and "delusional" are probably more accurate for most), but it is a valid criticism and I don't see no reason not to include it. (Personally I think the whole article has become one big POV edit, and because of the nature of the article, the skeptical POV is winning out (also because there are fewer non-skeptical people who understand the subject very well--otherwise they'd be skeptics! :) ) but nonetheless, it is a bit of a ugly article by NPOV standards, even coming from the POV that the article mostly represents (i.e. I am a unabashed skeptic). --Brentt 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New project
Do you know about this new project: [1], you might be interested. Bubba73 (talk), 06:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, please join us there, if you feel it's right for you. There you will find people who know the difference between pseudoscience and science, in contrast to some you are now [2] dealing with.....;-) -- Fyslee 20:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Beeman.
Good day,
It seems you are the only one with a link to the article on William Beeman; I just thought you should know that I plan to make the target a disambiguation page in the near future.
Cheers --Folajimi 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Please check the recent history for . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project Gutenberg
I put the two projects back that you keep removing from the Project Gutenberg article, and explained why on the talk page. In short: 1) almost none of the projects listed as affiliated are Official Afilliates, 2) if you delete a fact you should always explain your action on the talk page, 3) if you want to keep the fact, but not on a certain page, you should move, rather than delete it.
A solution that I would be OK with is if only official affiliates are mentioned, and if the rest are moved to another heading or even their own article. Don't assume you know all about PG, just because you have been a contributor for five years. Look things up.--82.92.181.129 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Botchan
Did a quick rewrite of this - I haven't read the novel in question, so I hope it's OK! --Sir Ophiuchus 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lolicon
There is another stawpoll on the disputed offensive image currently underway at Talk:Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophilia
Could you please dicsuss your edits to Rind et al. (1998) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch? Thanks, -Will Beback 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project Gutenberg
I just translated "Project Gutenberg" to Chinese which is much more than the old one. The two zh links are the same article. --Farm 13:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block on Klingon language
-
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wanted_for_treason.jpg
I would ask that you create that copyright template and properly cite it then, because the current template you are using is for pre-1923, which this obviously was not, and your statement that published before that date and without a notice = PD is uncited. Until such a template exists I'm going to return the image to fair use, since the template currently applied to it is patently false. If you create the template that correlates to the correct law, go right ahead. Staxringold 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, and I apologize. Staxringold 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Excessive vandalism
Please do not vandalize Wikipedia articles. Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC))
Stop accusing other people of vandalism when it's really a content dispute.--Prosfilaes 00:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- What do you call removing an entire section because you feel that it is "mere trivia"? (Ibaranoff24 00:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC))
- You're removing an entire section because you don't like what it says. How is that fundamentally different? The petition is mere trivia; there's no need to record the exact wording of a petition.--Prosfilaes 00:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I removed a POV comment made by some two-bit author whom nobody has even heard of. The petition text is in there because Wikipedia won't allow links to the Petition Online website. YOU vandalize articles by inserting POV statements and removing entire sections. That is a huge difference. (Ibaranoff24 00:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC))
- Once again, non-Wikipedians are free to make POV comments and we are free to quote them. Your bias is showing through when you call him a two-bit author; winning major awards in his field proves otherwise.--Prosfilaes 00:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks: reference desk
Thanks for your answer to my question on the reference desk. I think I've gotten too used to standardizing my spellings for Wikipedia articles. Writing too different verisions of a word seems weird now.--Bkwillwm 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nonidiomatic
What does the word "nonidiomatic" mean, in the context of your reversion of my change to Nineteen Eighty-Four? Ansell 00:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've never heard "within English literature" used before. A brief search on Project Gutenberg reveals that (a) the Gutenberg full-text sucks, but (b) I'm finding many examples of "in English literature" and none of "within English litature". Nonidiomatic in this case meaning that I have a hard time arguing that it's formally wrong, but it's not something I think an English speaker would say.--Prosfilaes 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Bradley Article
Hello,
Thank you very much for catching and deleting that totally unnecessary reference associated with Walter Breen in the ‘Marion Zimmer Bradley’ Article. I was totally focused on Categories. I’m sorry I didn’t catch it & delete it myself.
Be healthy,
- Michael David 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] pseudohistory
as a courtesy, i thought i would let you know i've done a major rewrite. ElectricRay 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] translations and links
Hey, I noticed you seperated the translations from the external links to those translations on The Clouds. It seems kind of redundant to do that - just wanted to see what your reason for it was. - Ravenous 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because (a) I don't think that non-cite links should be in the body text of the encyclopedia articles, and (b) I wanted to change the one Gutenberg book to link directly to Gutenberg and use the standard Gutenberg template, and the template was a little big in place.--Prosfilaes 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Samuel Daniel
Hi: The reason I had originally delinked all of the year dates is because of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style section 21: Wikilinking
specifically, "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read. Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?"
I didn't think that it would be useful; most articles don't have that much linkage of just year dates. If you agree, I can go back and delink them. --FeanorStar7 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miller Test
I just wanted to see how fast someone would change it from Providence back to San Francisco. Good job. --Toddd 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yurikbot
Thanks for your comments. I am not an editor at the Italian Wikipedia and do not wish to be. SP-KP 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] please be consistent
hello Prosfilaes,
i'm interested in why you took it upon yourself to delete an external link i set, sighting it as an 'advertisement', but yet you pass over the link directly above to some individual's CD for sale, a link that bears no relationship to the punctuation mark the interrobang except in name only. in fact, the image of the naked fellow (presumably the 'artist') does not even include an interrobang per se.
as a tangential 'external link', my addition seemed appropriate. my site bears directly on typography from the era of the hot metal interrobang, and in fact, i actually possess interrobangs in my collection of physical type. it was not meant as an advertisment (since a great deal of work i do is gratis) so much as a 'here is someone labouring under the name 'interrobang' that actually has a concrete raison d'etre for appropriating the term'. that is, i am acquainted with the interrobang in the milieu from which it originated, not simply as a obscure term/glyph with some obvious curiosity value.
[edit] ::poke::
I tried too: [3]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] www on Project Gutenberg
I noticed you replaced the www on the Gutenberg author template. Just wondering - what is the advantage of including the www? http://gutenberg.org is the same as http://www.gutenberg.org. It's not a big deal: I'm just asking. --Anthony5429 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's correct, mainly. The http://gutenberg.org form redirects to http://www.gutenberg.org. It's improper to assume in general that http://example.com will redirect to http://www.example.com, and in this case it adds another redirect to not use the www. Given that, I see no reason to not use the www.--Prosfilaes 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Esperanto
Hi, I would like to inform that I have cited evidences about similarities between Newspeak and Esperanto. I would also appreciate if and when you see an inappropriate section, please improve on it instead of simply removing it. :)
[edit] Where is equality and justice?
I cannot really understand the reasons of such angry and unfair treatments with myself. I thought that the administrators of Wikipedia would be more logical than this because after any movement done by myself, it occurs a great wave of grudge, angriness and pessimism against me, and I don’t know that for what sin, I am being punished. I am a Persian blogger like Mehdi Jami and the others who are being listed on Wikipedia. I told many times that being conversant in some world languages is not any honor, I told that publishing even 1000 articles is not any honor or prosperity… but I want to be treated like others, why you count all my quotes as vandalism, as impoliteness… Must I be punished and chastened because of my age? My nationality? My weak language knowledge? I don't know how you can claim that there is another recorder of world's youngest journalist title. I have lots of letters from IFJ president that I cannot provide them anywhere... All of your efforts about me is to accept that I am not the world's youngest journalist who started his work when he was 8... ok! Accept... I don't know... I am sure that you will remove my page at last... but why? Also I am very sorry for my compatriots who treat me like a terrorist! All people are searching and studying my works to find a mistake. Ok? But why? Why on this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kziabari (talk • contribs) .
[edit] ACLU
Thanks for the fix on the ACLU page! Sdedeo is taking temporary leave, hopefully it'll only be temporary. The suspects are seeking a lock on the article once it's edited to their preference.
[edit] ACLU page
I apologize for overdoing the revisions. I realize that I should have used a much slower approach. I promise to take that into account in the future. I hope we can work together to further improve the article. Jasper23 07:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Violation of 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jasper23 10:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shavian Alphabet
Sorry for putting it on both the Esperanto pages, I won't do it again.Cameron Nedland 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
