User talk:Berserk798

Hello new user and welcome to Wikipedia.

Nice work on the Common Era article! You will go far around here by maintaining a civil tone and supporting your edits with sound reason and reliable sources. Common Era is strongly contested as you have discovered and it needs editors like you to improve it.

A few tips for you:

Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date
Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
Have fun.

- Sunray 07:09, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Those links are pretty helpful. I'm (obviously) new around here, and am just getting the hang of it. I look forward to helping improve Wikipedia and working with people like you. Berserk798 17:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know?

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry that you feel my edits to the article were pov, but I assure that they were not; in fact, I corrected some pretty blatant pov. This article has historically been a pov magnet for What the Bleep advocates and WTB "street teams." I've been repeatedly correcting this for a year now. Please be more careful with your accusations of pov and open to considering that your personal interpretation of the npov policy may not be shared by others, and also please sign your comments using by using "~~~~". FeloniousMonk 15:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how saying "an alternate and controversial view of the physical world" as opposed to "a different view of the physical world" is less POV? Wouldn't that be going directly against the guidelines of the NPOV Policy I quoted?

Is calling the experts "those that have been presented as experts" less POV? We're supposed to give a sympathetic view to both sides and assume that everything is at least plausible. We can't just say they're "presented as experts" as that's your point of view. There's a sizeable community that considers them to be experts in the field of quantum physics.

Your reinsertion of the sentence "The filmmakers assembled a panel favorable to their views to make their point (see below)." is not only redundant, as the next paragraph says "The film presents scientific experts to support the film's underlying philosophy, but, by and large, the scientists have previously been involved in promoting similar ideas. Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find scientists sympathetic to the film's ideas.", but it doesn't seem very neutral at all.

Saying that these chosen experts do not represent the scientific community is just stupid. There isn't one scientific community with one outlook on things. There are several different scientific communities each with their own ideas. I suggest we change it back to may not.

Using words like "purported" and "alleged" is also a bad idea. I think "controversial" is much more neutral.

Please address each of these and explain how it made the article more neutral. Thanks! :) --Berserk798 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bach style section

Berserk—I want to rewrite this section. :-) Tony 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Hello Berserk, i found your name on the Mozart talk page and I'm asking you for help on the Mozart article. I'm active on the german wikipedia, there somebody, probably closely related to the study author Martin Braun, tried to place links to "scientific studies" proving the authenticy of two Mozart portraits. This person also tried to place the portraits. On de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart we removed the pics and links of this self proclaimed expert. I did the same here, but get reverted. As I'm no regular here, I simply need somebody to watch out. I hope you got the idea, despite of my english. --stefan (?!) 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Kremlin Palace

hi Berserk798, how are you? I am having some issues on this article about its neutral-point-of-view (which it is not I believe) I just noticed as well your issues you are having with Hermitage Museum, I find some words rather questionable for an encyclopedia as well. Maybe you could take a look at the article I mentioned above and care to give some input on this, I would appreciate that. thanks alot and with kind regards Gryffindor 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the Hermitage Museum was one of the very first articles I touched in Wikipedia and could have been too enthusiastic in my judgments, the Grand Kremlin Palace is a different matter. I advise you to travel to Moscow and to see the palace interiors for yourself before embarking upon pointless discussions. There are so many things in Wikipedia to do - can't you find a more useful engagement? My advice: write something yourself rather than crticising those who contributed more than 500 articles to this project. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

The article states that the Hermitage Museum is the "most important" museum of human history and culture in the world. I removed that statement in accordance to Wikipedia's style guide, because it's not a verifiable fact but merely someone's opinion, and that it gives no actual information about the museum.
Not at all. It says "one of the most important". While I don't believe that the phrase is mine, yet the statement is factually correct. If you remove it, I would not revert: the fact is obvious enough. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "Leonardo" to "Leonardo da Vinci" because many people will not correctly identify the name Leonardo as being Leonardo da Vinci.
While I can imagine the hamburger-chewing public you take so much care about, it's not very likely that they are able to read anything more advanced than cartoons. If you think the problem is real, make your changes. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "but there is actually much more to see" to "there are several more collections, however, including" because the former sounds too informal for Wikipedia, in my mind. This is, however, very debatable.
Indeed. I see nothing wrong here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "superb" description of the Faberge jewellery in accordance to Wikipedia's style guide, the POV factor, and because it gives no information about the collection. If you want people to realize how superb it is, tell them facts that show what makes it superb.
This change is OK with me. I don't believe there is so much Faberge jewelry in the Hermitage. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "breathtaking" description of the ancient gold collection for the same reasons as the "superb" description.
I have objections here. Perhaps we should state clearly that the Hermitage contains by far the largest part of the steppe (Scythian, Sarmatian, Bosporian) gold produced before Christ\s era? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statement that describes the German architect as "stylish". This is, obviously, for similar reasons as the two previous edits.
Please read carefully: Klenze was not stylish but fashionable. Only those who have no idea about 19th-century architecture may dispute the fact. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "its quality is still unsurpassed". Please, don't even argue with this one. The same reasons as "superb" and "breathtaking".
The epithet is surely judgmental, yet it is basically correct. In terms of quantity, the Hermitage's collection is now the second best; yet the fame, size, diversity of subject matter, importance for the history of painting - in one word, quality - of Rembrandt paintings represented here have no rivals elsewhere. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "notable" is more neutral than "remarkable", but this is debatable.
I don't see it at all.
"Several" means the same exact thing as "a lot" except it sounds more encyclopedic and is less informal. Why do you even have an issue with this?
Because Schukin bought up the whole Picasso's studio circa 1909. Every large or otherwise eminent painting from the period went to his collection, which was later divided between the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum. Those early Cubist paintings by Picasso that may be seen in the West were sold abroad by the Communists. Even in the present state, the Hermitage's collection of 40 major works by Picasso may by no means reduced to "several paintings". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Describing some paintings as "somewhat less irreplacable" than others is fallacious and POV. Similar reasons as the "superb" and "breathtaking" edits, but I hope I don't need to go into detail about them.
Please do. There are less than dozen Van Eyck's in the world, each long appropriated by a major museum, so the loss of every one is irreplacable. There are no (and never will be) other Van Eycks on the market to buy and to fill the gap in the collection. On the other hand, there are thousands of Renoirs or Monets in the market, so there is hope that a new painting by one of this paintings will be acquired, hence the loss is retrievable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The period was only "tragic" in the eyes of some people. Obviously the Soviets didn't think it was too tragic; obviously the people abroad who bought the paintings didn't think it was tragic at all. This is purely, wholly, undebatably POV.
The article is about a particular museum. For the museum officials the loss is tragic, and they say it openly in every publication you can consult. What others think about the matter is of little consequence to this article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the impressionist works were "by far the most precious" is POV for obvious reasons as well.
Please consult auction records. The paintings are sold and bought, and every artwork has a price. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not given the right to judge whether or not works of art are "incredible". I don't think we should be describing this movie as such.
It's not my phrase. There are many enthusiasts of the movie who I'm pretty sure will restore it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_oxymora

I replyed to your comment on Oxymorn page. I'd like your input on my proposal since your the only active editor over there:) ---J.Smith 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your New User Page Layout...

Is very nice. : )

Though I mock your 'mana-sama' thing.

Image Tagging for Image:Moidixmoisportrait.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Moidixmoisportrait.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malice Mizer related articles

Exactly what do you feel needs to be discussed? My edits were based on common Wikipedia policies and guidelines, given in the respective edit summaries. But if you require a more detailed rationale, here you go:

Song and album titles are to be subjected to standard English capitalization/title case formatting, as suggested by the Manual of Style and the relevant WikiProjects.
Japanese titles are to be mentioned but as this is an English language encyclopedia, they are not to be given preference over their English/romanized counterparts.
In order to enter "visual kei" in the genre field of an infobox, you would have to provide reliable sources for the assertion that visual kei indeed constitutes a music genre, with defining musical properties of its own.
Any information not backed by a reliable source may be removed by any editor at any given time, as verifiability is one of the core principles of this project.

This should about cover it. - Cyrus XIII 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my message. Regrettably, you have still not provided any reliable sources for your assertions (fansites are self-published sources and are not considered reliable), nor made a conclusive argument why their should be exceptions for articles dealing with Malice Mizer and their work from aforementioned Wikipedia guidelines.

Some things I'd like you to consider, in regard of WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL: We generally do not accuse fellow editors of "mangling" articles, or suggest to them the purchase of certain albums, in order for them to enter the realm of people qualified to write about given artist. Wikipedia is not a free fansite hosting service, so whether an editor does not own a single Malice Mizer record or everything from the first pressing of Memoire to the recent re-issues does not matter at all. This project's policies and guidelines on the other hand do. - Cyrus XIII 09:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound harsh, but I generally do not make it a habit to delve into lengthy discussions on such matters with people who appear to be primarily motivated by personal fandom. Visual kei is not a music genre, Malice Mizer's music is not beyond categorization and at least on Wikipedia, common English formatting rules apply to the band's body of work, and that's that. If the idea of having solely "gothic rock" in a few infoboxes appalls you so much, just expand the spectrum. I've seen and worked on a lot of album infoboxes which list two or three genres and there's nothing wrong with that - some works come with a certain stylistic diversity and need that sort of coverage.

That all being said, I'm glad that you have since taken to use italics instead of exclamation marks. And should guideline or policy matters come up in the future, please provide wiki links for the pages you are quoting right away. - Cyrus XIII 02:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'll never realize that your perception of me being a zealous fan is wrong because it comes out of an ignorance of the music in question. If a band is completely unrelated to the gothic rock scene, movement, and genre, if they have absolutely no connection to it, there's no way you can possibly justify labeling them as such. It's factually wrong on a multitude of levels. I understand that infoboxes can have several genres listed, but gothic rock cannot be used to describe Malice Mizer. Only someone who either a) knows nothing of the music they have produced or b) knows nothing of gothic rock could be satisfied with such a serious error.

And as much as you enjoy using my presentation as an excuse to dismiss the logic of my arguments, you're wrong in doing so. You're not doing the Wikipedia community any favors by ignoring editors who might have more information on a given topic than you and going ahead to make erroneous changes. Also, you are not an editor-in-chief, you are not some sole authority on Malice Mizer, you have no rights to the articles. We will discuss this on all of the respective talk pages. Your edits have no right to reign supreme without a discussion on their validity. I'm going to start the discussions and we will reach a conclusion. Berserk798 14:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm bothering you again

I agree with you on art and prog rock being appropriate and descriptive terms of their music (and experimental rather not), though I still think that Darkwave and/or gothic rock describe the band's late work (post-Gackt era) quite well, in terms of themes and atmosphere, as well as instrumentation. For example, orchestral grandeur might not be the penultimate norm for those genres, but quite a few bands who are commonly associated with them employ elaborate orchestrations to a similar degree and effect as Malice did on Bara no Seidou (i.e. Lacrimosa). Same goes for certain beats and synthesizers, an early example being "S-Consious", already from the Merveilles record. Do you think we may establish a middle ground in this? - Cyrus XIII 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:M10M logo 2.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:M10M logo 2.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Moi dix Mois Fatedâraison d'Ãªtreâ tour.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Moi dix Mois Fatedâraison d'Ãªtreâ tour.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Moi dix Mois SHIBUYA-AX Beyond the Gate Finale.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Moi dix Mois SHIBUYA-AX Beyond the Gate Finale.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mana 4standing.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mana 4standing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SimsMMagic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SimsMMagic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Moi_dix_Mois_Fated“raison_d'être”_tour.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Moi_dix_Mois_Fated“raison_d'être”_tour.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:M10M logo 2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:M10M logo 2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Moi dix Mois Fated“raison d'être” tour.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moi dix Mois Fated“raison d'être” tour.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Merveillescover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Merveillescover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Voyagealbumcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Voyagealbumcover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Memoirealbumcover.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Memoirealbumcover.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Moi dix Mois SHIBUYA-AX Beyond the Gate Finale.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:Moi dix Mois SHIBUYA-AX Beyond the Gate Finale.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Berserk798! Lazy use of citations are misleading

Dear Bersek798,

now might be a time to jump in and straighten out the Masanobu Fukuoka#Criticism section, according to your non-perfunctory assessment of its false statements [1] – as previously talked about. As discussed, you and i do not have to fight nor to cooperate, but continue to be entirely independent editors – this is the best way anyway IMHO. i certainly don't fight willingly with anyone. i don't accept anyone's mis-characterisations of me, nor of my English writing. Naturally, i assume the best of editors—Assume good faith—and expect editors to assume the best of me. Editors who, at the outset, assume the worst of anyone, without giving sources/examples/evidence, including of me, don't stand in good faith anymore. For example, it's a fair assumption at the outset that any poor writing i have done in WP is temporary because i am a busy person in my real life, too busy to complete my editing at the outset to my own high standards; it is not a fair assumption to insinuate my English abilities as poor—WP:COMPETENCE. Editors who, at the outset, come waging a war of words against any editor or any WP article's subject don't stand in good faith at all anymore, immediately after their outset, even though it may take the rest of us editors some time to realise this. Most of my life, in fact, my English language abilities and skills are described back to me by people, as too advanced for them and many people to comprehend, especially vocab. and creative poetic and non-prose uses, even as i'm too busy to complete editing or sentences to my own high standards. When too busy usually my sentences are way too long, as here. I don't have any time for unofficial, rigid, (anal–retentive), popular–fad–prejudice rules of English language, demanded of us by some minority few of those mediocre–educated of us Anglophones. Living languages are just so—constantly creatively changing—not rigid, static, ossified dead.

——--macropneuma 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your past Q about native v. professional English language was your thinking that i was the person who edited to write the misleading Criticism section, after not faithfully comprehending Prof Kato's paper—It dawns on me these last few days! A simple mistaken identity, not me at all, a different editor, which i have had much worse difficulties with deliberate tendentious editing of. i decry the terrible misuse of that source. Many times now over a year i have been stonewallled from and reverted from, my corrective edits... . All article–topping banners for telling readers the NPOV situation were summarily removed many times. I don't have time to waste on such... .

——--macropneuma 16:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 16:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

You have been a fine fellow all these years! Mindlark (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]