Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five

Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome

Wikipedia footnotes

tables

citation templates

Wikipedia is not...

No original research...

Manual of Style

Disambiguation

Cases of suspected sockpuppetry

CheckUser

DNS stuff

...has also had some major revision done, and if you get the chance your expertise on the subject matter would be much appreciated. I'm going to sit out on both the Sophocles and Aeschylus articles for a week or so and come back for a copy-edit and touching up. Long term goal for both is FA. - Mocko13 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have archived several ungoing discussions. I think this was a bad idea. Could you please restore all ongoing discussions? Thank you. johanthon 10:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

message 2: Akhilleus, I agree that it would be a good idea to archive some of the closed discussions, but the thing is that the chapter 'Naming, About Paganism, the Poll for the Requested Move of the page, Page Name is POV, NPOV is one of .......' are related to one another and are part of a perpetuum discussion. Everything else can be archived. I think especially the poll is vital for the context of this ongoing discussion. So please keep those related chapters. Thank you. johanthon 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, I know the poll is 6 months old, but it is related to the posts from 17/18 februari. I really would like to help archiving the non-related chapters, however I don't understand how and the explaining page about archiving does not help me much so unfortunatly I have to leave that for a brave warior. johanthon 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article." --Akhilleus (talk) Akhilleus, I feel with you. You are so right, but unfortunatly christianity has hurted many peoples deep in their souls. So I'm affraid we'll have to be patient. johanthon 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Akhilleus, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored you felt I was a strong candidate and glad you appreciate my efforts to deal with the original research that litters Wikipedia's classical music articles. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, can you tell where to find the procedure required to ban the IPs of Classicjupiter and his proven sockpuppets?--TextureSavant 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like people on the community ban page were not receptive to the situation. What do you recommend we do next? Actually, even at this point, no admin has left any kind of warning and/or block on Classicjupiter2's talkpage about the sockpuppetry.--TextureSavant 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a tool somewhere in my monobook that generates those reports. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my monobook is massive please be careful. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its here Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus, to answer your last question, my opinion is that Classicjupiter2 is essentially a spammer who wishes to use wikipedia to promote himself. He has spent the past few years "getting close" with the Surrealism article just so that he appears like a "resident expert" on the subject. In his position, he has pushed his personal http://www.surrealismnow.com link forward while at the same time discouraging others who challenge him.

Some of us, such as user:TheEvilPanda, user:Daniel_C._Boyer and myself, know him outside of wikipedia as Keith Wigdor, someone who has been rejected by the int'l surrealist movement as being an art opportunist who is interested more in his art career rather than anything else associated with surrealism, in the philosophical, activist, political meanings. For at least 5 years, Keith Wigdor has had a vendetta against various surrealists who have rejected him, and this has spilled into the wikipedia domain.

So to make a long story short, yes he is a spammer who's out to promote his own self-interest, but he also gets a thrill from disrupting others who are genuinely interested in the surrealist movement. Hence his attempts to block the discussion of the current, contemporary surrealist groups (such as the Chicago group) who just so happen to want to have nothing to do with him.

As you have seen, he has access to several IPs. If you block one of those, then he'll just find another one to use, like he has been doing for the past 2+ of his years on wikipedia. In light of this, what do you suggest?--TextureSavant 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you response, Akhilleus. Today I opened an AMA request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/TextureSavant

I did this because, from reading the ArbCom page, it seems like we haven't quite done enough yet to start an ArbCom case. Hopefully after the AMA going through, then maybe ArbCom will be the next step (assuming the sockpuppets keep appearing, which I suspect they will)?--TextureSavant 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all secondary sources which form the basis of the articles we have use Peisistratus, which is a latinized half-measure in my view (I would prefer the -atos). In looking through the "what links here" it's all over the map; I've done most of the dabbing now, I'll probably finish after lunch, but haven't elected to really change the text of the various articles. Someone else is certainly free to do that and to move all the Peisistratae (or -ai) to Pis- names, but I have been working off the existing article's spelling but have -os'ed the tyrant. Has anyone done a Google scholar search to see what scholars choose? Carlossuarez46 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:GREEK, which is of no help (the vowel cluster here – ει – is to be transcribed "variable: to be discussed". In any event, the whole gist of WP:GREEK is to avoid later, Latinized forms, here that would certainly include the "Pis-" spellings. In any event, WP:GREEK has the big ole caveat (sorry for the Latin) that common sense prevails. So I tried to divine a "common sense" among the the ways various wikipedians have been using the name(s). Alas, there may be "sense" but little commonality; indeed I came across a couple of articles that used 2 different spellings of the same guy's name. So given that wikipedians' sense has no commonality, I turned to my trusty sources for the articles, which by and large are 19th century - hence public domain - scholarly British authors, who are fond of the Latin "-us" over "-os" but reject the "i" for "ει", even prefering "Alexandreia" over "Alexandria", the later being nearly exclusive usage in Latin authors writing in Latin, the former holding closer to the Greek original. So, I've made a judgment; others may differ, but there is no absolute policy one way or another; if you want to change all the "Peis" to "Pis" go right ahead; WP is free for all to edit. I think I may still do a google scholar search to if modern researchers in English have found common ground on a single spelling. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Google scholar shows:

Peisistratus 590 hits Peisistratos 598 hits Pisistratos 21 hits Pisistratus 783 hits

So while Pisistratus gets a plurality, it's not by much and it's no majority. What we have is 1107 ghits for Peis- forms, and 805 ghits for Pis- forms, with 1292 for forms in -us versus 619 in -os. What does this all mean? It means that one can go ahead and spell it like the pros, who spell it nearly any which way. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "common uses take precedence over standard rules" and the example used is an -os that stays -os rather than its Latinized -us. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than expend further effort at this (including the redirects) – actually what got me on this was doing the Orchomenus (nicely latinized) article so I was just trying to tidy up after myself – I'll let the -os -> -us fanatics finish that job. Oh and your username does end in -us. ;-). Carlossuarez46 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

r.e. - User talk:194.247.227.222

The other site has better presentation than the text files on the MIT classics/gutenberg and a more complete collection of the dialogues than those sites also, but if you feel its better for gutenberg links (wikipedia has notation for gutenberg built in doesn't it?) then fair enough.

Hi Sparkit, did you know you've been listed as a party to this case?

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/TextureSavant

I'm listed too, but I haven't been involved in this situation other than a few comments recently. Do you understand what's happening on the Surrealism page? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus! I did know I was named in that, but I don't know what being a party in such a case means, or what participation is expected or available to me. I do understand what's happening on the Surrealism page. Thanks! [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkit, I don't understand what's happening on the Surrealism page--by which I mean, there seems to be a long-running dispute here, but I don't really understand what it's about, or what the various parties actually want. It doesn't seem to be just about adding a link to an external website...anyway, if you understand what's happening, could you explain it to me? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did misunderstand. I'll compose a brief recap of my understanding of the conflicts. Hopefully by this evening. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My read on the conflicts on Surrealism related pages centers on several core questions:

• What is "real" Surrealism? To Andre Breton and the original surrealists, surrealism was a change in thought processes, priorities and the like in an effort to revolutionize society. There's a political aspect to what at first blush is a visual arts or literature movement. It's my understanding that the original movement wasn't about creating works, but changing society and the works were a side effect, an artefact. Thus, part of what we're dealing with here is the differences in the definition of the term "surrealism" – originally surrealism was a process (and still is to many people) not the product, but the product has become known as surrealism. That's why there's a phrase in the article, " In more mundane terms, the word "surreal" is often used colloquially to describe unexpected juxtapositions or use of non-sequiturs in art or dialogue."
• Closely parallel to "what is 'real' surrealism" contentions is who is or isn't a "real" surrealist. Some contend that surrealists are only those who adhere to the original tenets. To confuse the matter, much visionary art and the like looks very similar to the work of the original surrealists, and thus the visionary art is called surrealism. There's some clamoring of individuals and groups to be recognized as surrealists.
• What's happened with Surrealism since Breton's death? Some say the movement died with him. Yet other groups, besides the original Paris-based group have formed.

So, inclusion of links, mention of various individuals, works and the like, IMO, are reflections of the contentions above. Disruptive tactics and ad hominem arguments make it difficult to sort out the problems.

I hope this helps. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 19:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkit, thanks, that's very helpful. But this isn't an abstract thing for some of these editors, right? Some of them believe that they are real surrealists and that other editors aren't real surrealists. And in the process, it seems like what the article says about surrealism has strayed from a conventional art historical understanding of surrealism. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it is very real to the participants.

The main article (Surrealism) as it stands now basically just covers the philosophy/thought aspect. At one time it contained the history and art aspects, too. But in Oct. 2006 HappyCamper branched the history section (History of surrealism) into a separate article and Surreal-one broke the art part (Surrealism in the arts) into another article.

After having left the scene for a number of months, and coming back and finding that an art article had been created, but material duplicated in the main article, I deleted the art stuff from the main article as a way to avoid maintaining the info on both pages.

I've been hoping that once the smoke clears we can join the main, history and art articles back into one. Then proceed to present the info in NPOV fashion by presenting the multiple sides of the story. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per this, please be advised that I observed both the user (Hillock) and the suspected sock account (Chuprynka) and they had very little in common. Hillock is a fierce POV-pusher but there were no evidence of Socking. Chuprynka was rather a reasonable editor. The sockpuppetry report was filed by a user who is a confirmed sock himself. Betacommand is not exactly known for thoroughly investigating before blocking (rather to the contrary) and if he took time to investigate this frivolous complaint, he would have seen that these users had little in common and that the request was filed by a confirmed (now banned) sock. Betacommand has no checkuser either. Anyway, the block of these accounts is not my concern since the users have left anyway and should any of them comes back, they will request the unblock. However, I reverted the false and unsupported accusation of socking and if you are to restore it, please make sure it is backed by some more solid evidence than just by "Betacommand said so". Happy edits, --Irpen 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to post my analysis of the case and full reasoning behind it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error, in my haste to stop the vandal who was doing damage faster than I could correct it, I wanted to get the report in ASAP and neglected to read the directions as their length was overwhelming in the face of continued damage. I have now corrected this and the page should be in proper form now. Thanks again! WilliamKF 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that external links to sites that contain more indepth information on a subject were forbidden. I added back one edit to the Cultural_depictions but without the link. - Politicalpoet 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{ssp}} automatically looks up the latest page, as in {{ssp|Mykungfu}} → Template:Ssp -- Ben 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]