User talk:Mcorazao/archive 1

Orthodox Christianity page

Hey, I believe it was you who added "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two [Eastern and Oriental Orthodox] Churches collectively has little meaning."

I'm curious about your sources for this. While there are factions within both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox communions who would agree that the churches have nothing to do with each other, it's my impression (and certainly my experience) that the mainstream of each communion regards the other as extremely close or identical in doctrine, worship and spirit. I've heard stories of frequent intercommunion among the two churches, chiefly in Syria and Lebanon.

So, what's the source of your statement? Buddhagazelle 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your statement on Orthodox Christianity that "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively has little meaning". The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches typically refer to their division as "a split within Orthodoxy," rather than as the one being Orthodox and the other not. In many parts of the world, especially Lebanon and Syria, intercommunion between the two churches is authorized and frequent. Check also the "Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches" on this page, which states that "the official view of both families of Churches was clearly expressed at the 1989 meeting: 'As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other, we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the apostolic faith of the undivided Church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed.' ".

While there is a substantial minority within both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions that holds the other to be completely non-Orthodox, this is a minority position on both sides. Most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians regard the other to be also Orthodox. Removing the "Note" does not imply that the two Churches have no differences-- the differences between the two is quite clearly stated (that the one accepts seven councils and the other three). A note to clarify that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions are not (yet) in full communion with one another might be in order. But the "Note" as it stands is really very POV. Don't accuse me of making "uninformed" edits without sourcing your own claims. --Buddhagazelle 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your prompt and courteous reply. As I understand it, your worry is that the following text:

• The Eastern Orthodox Church: the Eastern Christian churches of Byzantine tradition that adhere to the seven Ecumenical Councils.
  
• The Oriental Orthodox Churches: the Eastern Christian churches adhering to the teachings of only the first three Ecumenical Councils (plus the Second Council of Ephesus).
  
  

is insufficiently clear on its own, and requires a clarifying note. I have POV concerns with the note as you've written it. However, I would not have POV concerns with the following note: The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are not in communion and do not represent a unified religious tradition. As such, the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively refers more to a common Byzantine influence than to doctrinal matters.

On the principle of be bold, I'm going to go ahead and make this edit with the full expectation that you will tweak (or rewrite) it.

I apologize for turning this into a doctrinal debate, when it's really only an issue of formatting. While you and I have differing opinions on the extent of the difference between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (and I'm prepared to provide further resources and arguments to back my claims, if it's a conversation you'd like to pursue), we agree that the two Churches are separated by a 1500-year-old schism. The issue, it seems, is whether this schism is as deep as it is old, and how best the article can present neutral facts without leading naive readers into mistaken assumptions. Again, I thank you for your swift and reasonable reply, and am truly sorry for having been eager to take offense.

--Buddhagazelle 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with your rewrite, at least for now. It is a little more vague than I would like but, after all, we're talking about a clarification on a disambig page. Thanks for your efforts.

And I thank you. Perhaps a page titled Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Ecumenical Relations might eventually be in order? I think I found your note too strongly worded with regard to the amount of information it contained.

To explain further, though, they key thing is the cultural differences vs. the doctrinal differences. One can cynically state that the doctrinal differences were really excuses for politics and therefore they didn't matter. Maybe that is true and maybe it isn't but it is obviously POV. If we treat these religious traditions as legitimate, as we should, then we have to treat the schisms and the importance that they historically placed on these differences as important. You can similarly point to all sorts of interactions between these churches just as you can point to various interactions between Christians, Jews, and Muslims at various times depending on the tolerance of their political and spiritual leaders but that isn't really relevant. Ultimately a faith is a faith and regardless of cultural affiliations or "tolerance" one faith has toward another one has to respect the fact that it is their faith that defines their religion. It may be that the various Eastern faiths are truly on the verge of reuniting which would change all of this but the reconciliatory statements by themselves do not mean we trivialize the fact that they maintain their differences or treat those differences as less consequential than differences with others simply because of cultural affiliation (which, again, is not relevant if we are being truly fair to the religion and not treating the doctrine as political excuses).

--Mcorazao 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; though I wouldn't be so quick to claim that doctrine and culture are separate animals. If bishops, priests, monastics and laity of each tradition speak of the others as equally Orthodox-- as has overwhelmingly been my observation and experience everywhere I've been-- and if members of one church are communed in or received into the other without any formality or the blinking of an eye-- as again has been my experience in every Eastern Orthodox parish I've belonged to and Coptic and Indian Orthodox parish I've had friends in-- does one look at this and say "the churches are betraying their own identities"? Or does one take the words & deeds of the faithful at face value? Quite admittedly, I'm giving you anecdotal evidence and nothing scholarly. And quite admittedly there are parts of the world where the boundaries between the two communions are much less fuzzy than they are where I've lived. So all this is to say that to claim the two traditions have "nothing in common" is to claim that the words & deeds of many folks in each tradition are mistaken. Which may be true, but is certainly POV - as of course would be the claim that the differences between the two communions are inconsequential.

--Buddhagazelle 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Oriental Orthodox churches re-emerged from under islamic rule and needed to re-structure and formalise their existance. Most Oriental churches retain views of the Monophyistes as does the Coptic Church. The re-emergence of Greek Orthodoxy had very little influences post 1453AD and its foundation was 1010AD (Pre-Schizm church culture and doctrine). It was considered upon its revival as the last Benefactor of the original Christian Faith, of course this is not without contention and in many ways disrespected. If we ever needed to give a name for the Religion of the Roman Empire it would be Christian to avoid the obvious bias and miss representation that Katholiki would have when translated ie Catholic. The Orthodox faith in particular Greek Orthodoxy Continue to represent the Eastern Empires and Western Empires church culture before the rise of a "Pontifus Maximus" or the "Primacy of Rome." issues and later the prodestant splits. A clue as to how a Byzantine church would feel and look like is given by the way Greek Orthodox church liturgies are conducted. We also note these methods stayed peristant with almost all the Oriental Churches meaning at some point they were part of the same church and liturgy. Also Roman Catholics and Early Church of England priests shared similar dress and church culture indicating again that the Eastern CHurch laid the standard for what was considered Christianity and Christian CHurch. Today of course it is so fragmented it is hard to believe they were all part of the same thing. 59.86.170.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Texas myths article

While of course you're welcome to request deletion of this page, especially given that you created it, I'd encourage you to reconsider. I think the improvements made to the article qualify it as encyclopedic enough to remain, and it is quite interesting (I've heard many of those myself, the facts on the "right to secede" one are especially interesting.) Thanks for the contribution and welcome, and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask on my talk or at the Help Desk. Seraphimblade 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

First, we had a pleasant exchange on Talk:History of Christianity about your POV concerns followed by my inserting a few edits on your behalf. I note that your position on early Christian heresies matches mine and I only noted the controversial nature of your proposed edits because (1) well, they are AFAIK a minority opinion among Christian theologians and pastors and (2) I had just recently debated this issue with two other editors who felt that the orthodox POV should dominate.

Understood and I agree. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So... after that exchange, I had developed a modicum of respect for you as an open-minded, progressive thinker and also a Wikipedian who was willing to show restraint in deference to other editors and in an effort to avoid conflict. I had you pegged as a reasonable although somewhat unorthodox thinker like me

Thanks I guess. :-) --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, let's bury the hatchet and talk substance not emotion. If I was insulting, I meant to insult a general attitude on the part of the Christian orthodoxy and not you in particular.

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you made the edit about the "uniqueness" of Christianity. That edit struck me as the sort of orthodox teaching that is fed to Sunday School kids. (um, did I forget to say "pablum"?)

I think you are thinking of something somebody said to you some time and trying to lump me in with them. Every religion is "unique" in some way. If the argument is that religions are not "unique" then we might as well not have different names for them. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do think that Christianity is unique. I just thought that your characterization of it in contrast to Judaism was off-the-mark. --Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be insulting when I wrote my first critique of your edit. I will be a little less restrained now so that we can have an honest discussion to "clear the air". The lack of sophistication and "hewing to the party line" in your "uniqueness" edit surprised me and seemed strange to be coming from the same guy who had just excoriated the History of Christianity article for hewing to the party line on early Christian heresies.

My concern was that you attributed things to my comments that I didn't say and subtlely implied that I was anti-semetic. I don't mind when somebody says "Dude, you're not making sense." but I tend to get offended by "strawman" arguments. Your arguments really had little to do with anything I said (again, I think your argument is with somebody else that you are trying to lump me with). --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, it was what you wrote that suggested that you should be lumped with "those other guys". Maybe I over-extrapolated but it seemed to make sense to make the leap based on what you wrote.

Once again, let's talk substance not personal emotion about what was meant and what was not.

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to reread what you've just written and think about how you'd feel. --Mcorazao 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit that there was a tinge of insult in what I wrote in suggesting that your "uniqueness" lacked sophistication. However, if you can get past your emotional response to what I wrote, perhaps you can agree that it is probably not accurate to argue that Christianity was "unique" because it proselytized while Jews "kept to themselves".

I've never claimed to be a sophisticated guy. Regardless, the argument was not intended to be sophisticated. I was just suggesting a general direction (and in fact deliberately overstating to make the direction clear) and asking if anybody was going to freak if I explored it or if somebody else explored it (apparently I got my answer). --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my sense of it is that you're right about the History of Christianity not talking enough about the persecution of the Christians and the reasons for their success. I just thought that the theory you expounded of why they succeeded while the Jews didn't were off-the-mark. To tell the truth, I don't know what the experts think are the reasons why they succeeded. Let's do some research and fill in the gap.

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My argument was that both traditional Jews and Christians were proselytizing and that traditional Judaism was doing a good job of proselytizing before the Christians came along and started "perverting" (in the eyes of the Jews) the product that the Jews were selling. This, in my opinion, is the real reason that Christians like Paul of Tarsus were persecuted by the Jews. It's not just that they were sects with strange ideas (there were lots of those). It's the fact that the Christians were competing in the synagogues throughout Asia Minor and starting to make headway. (This is my personal opinion. I think it jives with what Elaine Pagels has written. I'd love to hear about any other scholars who have formed similar opinions.)

The basic point to your argument is "there is more that unites us than divides us."

Um, no. I don't think so. I think that's what Pagels thinks. I think that there was a lot of bitter internecine feuding between traditional Jews and Christians and I have to say that I don't fully know why the Christians won. My personal speculation is that it was the greater openness to cross-fertilization with other cultures.

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can say that about anything. Ultimately if you want to be perfectly fair and not make any generalizations that could be even slight oversimplifications then you simply cannot write about history at all. Setting aside that every Jew is different and every Christian is different and nobody fits any particular mould, there were and are some differences on how Jews and Christians approach things, some based on the fundamentals of the religions and some just based on arbitrary traditions.

As a practical matter the Jewish community historically tied ethnicity and religion very closely together. This has varied greatly at various times and certainly today the connection is not nearly as great for most Jews as it was in ages past. In Roman times, though, the Jews typically did tie the two pretty closely (that is, ethnicity but not necessarily race; a non-ethnic-Jew could "become" an ethnic Jew but it was not simply a matter of adopting the faith, at least, not in general).

I believe the "tying to ethnicity bit" to some extent but I'm not fully convinced that it was much more than getting circumcised and agreeing to obey the Law. Can you provide evidence to support your statement? (I don't mean as a description of modern Judaism but of Judaaism in the beginning of the Common Era).

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A major factor in the rapid spread of Christianity was that the Christians were not as "closed" in how they accepted new people into the faith. There is no moral implication to that it is simply fact. There are a lot of caveats to all of that as you have brought up but it does not mean this is not a worthwhile topic to discuss in the article. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I think the difference is not that the Jews "kept to themselves" as the fact that they said "Here is our religion. Take it or leave it." whereas the Christians said "Ho! You got your ways, we got ours. Let's see what middle ground we can come to."

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is still trying to fit history into a modern mould. The Jews generally did not look at things as their trying to reach out to outsiders. The practical reality, of course, is that they did but still that is not how they looked at it. The Christian viewpoint was different. The "kept to themselves" viewpoint, although an oversimplification, is a correct viewpoint in that it was one part of how the Jews saw their community. "Evangelism" in the way that became common in Christianity would run counter to the Jewish ethnic identity. Again, from the modern perspective, we look back at all of this and observe that both Judaism and Christianity expanded so neither was really "closed". But that is really imposing our modern viewpoint on ancient values. --Mcorazao 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the Christian "brand" of Judaism won out, not just because of its openness to Gentiles (that's the Christian revisionist version) but because Christians were more willing to adapt to the Gentile customs, rituals, culture and even beliefs.

Well, I'll turn the tables on you and say that this is somewhat of a "revisionist" interpretation of history. You are viewing history through modern interpretation which is different from how people saw things in this age. The "customs, rituals, culture," etc. that you are brushing over were part of the issue as to what the Jews regarded as part of their ethnic identity. From the Jewish perspective if you fully embraced these customs, rituals, etc. and to one degree or another separated yourself from your former community in favor of the Jewish community then you "became" an ethnic Jew (and by extension a person of the Jewish faith). That didn't mean, of course, that you couldn't speak to non-Jews but still you had to choose which side you were really on. The "degree" to which all that was true in any individual Jewish community varied (and I'm sure there were cases in some communities where it was no harder to become a Jew than a Christian). In general the Christian community saw it differently. While you were expected to renounce beliefs in other gods and such, your identity otherwise could mostly stay intact. As a Christian you could still call yourself an Armenian or an Egyptian or a Spaniard or a Gaul (granted, again, as the Jewish diaspora spread the attitudes about nationality/ethnicity varied but still there was always "some" distinction made). In today's culture (at least in the U.S.) we tend to see this accepting and rejecting of ethnic/cultural identities as not a big deal but in ages past such things were considered extremely important. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of time. Gotta run. I haven't read the last bit of your message thoroughly but I think we are both agreeing that the apostle Paul said "neither Greek nor Jew" whereas the Jews tended to say "Greek or Jew, take your pick".

Talk to you later.

--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Church

I don't think the original version of OHCAC can now be seen can it? Johnbod 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just go to this link. Basically you just have to look at the history for that page and you can get at any of the old versions. --Mcorazao 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Church discussion

Hi Mcorazao,

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I think you've done a noble job of patiently working to thoughtfully improve the article, and I think your proposal makes a lot of sense in the micro and the macro context of Christianity. Thanks for laying it all out there for us. I think the straw poll is a good idea, and if you haven't been already, please think about contacting some other prominent members of the WP Christianity personally to come comment. Pastor David is one guy in particular that I'd suggest contacting. Until there is another proposal, I'll just continue to observe. I'd like to hear out Johnbod and see exactly what he's proposing - he may have some good points to bring up. Obviously the article can just sit as it is until he or someone else makes another proposal, the burden is on others at this point to propose an attractive change to the article and work within consensus. Nice work so far. Thanks for your contributions :) Nswinton\^talk 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback request

I have responded to your request for feedback on the article's talk page. Pastordavid 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation proposal

Firstly, thanks for all your hard work proposing compromise alternatives - much appreciated.

It seems that the most latest one has consensus (see my comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Final call on resolution one), so if you could introduce it into the article that'd be great (as it is your work).

Cheers, Daniel 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

he/she can't; because the article is locked.--Pejman47 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I have unprotected it :) Cheers, Daniel 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Smb did it for us. Thanks once again for your helpful proposals :) Cheers, Daniel 07:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire: Fundamentalism

Hi, sorry but you seem to have the wrong impression here - I was not aiming my comment at any particular user. I just thought the whole discussion was going nowhere. We discuss to improve the article, with a conclusion allowing for edits. This discussion was not going to end as such so I wanted it to end. That is all. I have nothing against you, or Javits, or Adrianco or whoever else participated.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline of Byzantium

I changed a little of what you said. Arab conquest of Egypt did give Byzantium's arab enemies great wealth but the Fatimid was never a threat to Byzantine Asia Minor, being regularly beaten by Nikephoros, John Tzimiskes and Basil II - the Fatimids were powerful enough to challenge Byzantium, but it was the Umayyads who did the Asian raiding, the Abassids less so and the Fatimids for the most part did not even get past Antioch - check out Byzantine-Arab Wars (780 - 1180).Tourskin (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate article renaming

I have recently filed a request to have the page moved so that 'the Apostate' will be removed. If you support (or oppose) the removal of this descriptor, please voice your opinion at Talk:Julian the Apostate Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fall of Roman Empire

I think you agree with me when I change the date of the Fall of Rome from 1453 to 476. Many say that the de jure end of Roman Empire (although such term can be said about such an empire) was not until the fall of Constantinople by the Turks. But it's not only the "official end" but the whole change of the mentality and of the general view: another language, other civilisation, other people with whom the Byzantines got in touch. After the fall of Rome the kings were not again Romans and the next "Roman Empire" was the "holy" one ruled by Germans. After all I please you to support me when I change the date of the end. Also many historitians say that the Roman Empire ended then. Dimboukas (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really thank you. But there was a period that the user Kurt Leyman used to change the date within 2 hours after I had changed it. Dimboukas (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just opened a new discussion upon the end of the Empire. Have a look: Talk:Roman Empire Dimboukas (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate

Ok go put in your opinion ASAP Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I reverted the poll closure; you need to put in your opinion before the admin closes it again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I removed your comment ([1]) from Talk:Julian the Apostate. The reason is that the poll has closed and should not be modified. If you would like to make a comment, please do so by starting a new section at the bottom of the talk page. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vlachs: were are they from ?

19:08, 22 February 2008 163.181.251.9 wrote: "Undid revision 193318723 by Spiridon MANOLIU: Not clear that this is accurate; relationship between Latin groups in early Middle Ages and Vlachs of later Middle Ages not proven".

Well: if the Vlachs of later Middle Ages are not the result of the evolution of the Latin groups in early Middle Ages, were are they from ? From Dacia (opinion of the south-slavic and some romanian historians) ? But the german, hungarian and russian historians have another opinion: the ancestors of the Romanians came from the balkan area, their ancestors are the early latin groups from the Byzantine empire... Who's right ? Who's wrong ?

It is a political incidence in history when some historians wrote a nomadic history about the Latin groups : germans, hungarians and russians historians support the south-north migration idea against the romanian arguments about their ancient history in Transylvania and east-Moldavia (Bessarabia), but south-slavic and greek historians support the north-south migration idea against the aromanian arguments about their ancient history in the Balkans; some romanian historians support this thesis because that's good for the romanian thesis about Transylvania... Oh, boy !

The answer is in the languages. Why are the Romanian and Aromanian languages so different ? (in Aromanian: no hungarian and very few slavic words, but many greek words from the early Middle Age; in Romanian: many slavic and hungarian words, and the greek words are all in their slavonic version).

Mystery, mystery... if we refuse to consider that the early Latin groups in the lower Danube have a different evolution in the north and the south side, as the gallo-romanic groups who given a Langue d'Oïl in the north of France and a Lengua d'Oc in the south...

Vishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He basicly whants to show that romanians-like people(romanians,aromanians,magelo-romaninas,etc...) formed both north and south of the Danube...Sipridon has some problems with english(even grater then myself! :) ) so be patient with him. He also told me an interesting note(I know it`s OR but I still think it`s worth mentioning): he said that despite the fact that he speaks greek, he understands italian better then armoanian...(himself being a native form Constanta)(East of the Danube). 86.120.79.51 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire's lead, please take a look at the talk page. I know you haven't participated much in discussion for this, but I think it would be a good idea to alert all notable editors Tourskin (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arab conquest

I reverted your change from "Arab Conquest" to "Foreign invasions", for numerous reasons. The first being that the plague devastated the eatsern realms which were more heavily populated than the western ones. Secondly the scholars that were infered in this context talk about Arab invasions, no? Foreign invasions is ambiguous. Yes Byzantium suffered invasions, but it was the Arab one in the 7th century that had a help from plague. Tourskin (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Even so, many scholars would unanimously agree that the magnitude of the threat of Barbarians across the Danube, or Lombards who can only expand so far before reaching a sea was nothing compared to that of a centralized, zealous Arab state with hundreds of thousands of potential recruits and ample resources. Even the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne was not of the same calibre as the Caliphate. Time and time again, Byzantium proved to be the only Christian power capable of defeating the Arabs in southern Italy, Illyria and Asia Minor, were else the only strong state in the Dark Ages, the Holy Roman Empire was not adequate, one could say. If you want kep it to foreign invasions, you have a fair point to do so, but the Arab invasions constituted the majority of Byzantium's foreign wars. Tourskin (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of Byzantine Science debate

Sorry for the long wait! Lol, I knew at least about the astrolab, algebra and compass, I just forgot about them sorry! However I`m not sure about "Modern" Surgery, as I pointed out anatomy was not totaly unknowned, and gliding isn`t the same to flying!(Otherwise we could have saftly considerd human flying to have comenced millenia ago).

Back to communications:

• About China-ERE relations: Are you referring to that hole Daqin thing. Come on! When you can`t call the Name of the Country right how can you assume that there were more then "contact"(and maybe slik road-ish) communications in place? No, there were no active relations with China. There was a mutual acknoledgment of exsistence, but that`s a different story.

• About ERE-Muslim relations: Back to that Creed, well it`s not about being roman or not, accepted(witch it was) or not...it`s about being accepted or rejected, it`s about the extent of it`s reach and the time it took to reach Persia! Trade, however influencial as it may be can not be cosidered as a method of comunication simply because it`s extent was still limited and it`s purpose economic. The embassies you are talking about; are they the ones established by Harun al-Rashid?! Cos` they were mearly a ceremonial way to pay tribute(by the ERE), if you know about others, then please inform me!

But I asked you if you would agree with my version. So? AdrianCo (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those references, however I am forced into a wiki break for an indefinitive term by grave personal problems...I`m realy sorry, but for the time being I realy can`t effectivly contribute for the project for the time being. AdrianCo (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, about Vlachs, the actual formulation about languages (with the right reference) is OK, isn't ? --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD Science in Medieval Western Europe

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Science in Medieval Western Europe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on Talk:Science in the Middle Ages.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Science in Medieval Western Europe. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I ask only if you are agree with the present formulation...

...in the article. I think YOUR theory is right, and I have not another theory.

In another side, I say and repeat: "Even without historic texts for proved it, the East-romanic languages (so, the Vlachs) can't come from another origin that the people's latin language spoken in the eastern side of the Roman empire. But we HAVE a prove: Theophanes and Simocattas attest in the VIth century than the autochtons of Haemos (today Balkans) speak latin... If we have doubts about THIS origin, logically we must suppose an Italian or Rhaetian origin for these poor Vlachs ! !"

Vishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move Julian the Apostate

Within a week, I am going post a new request to move the article. Please be ready to come in with support again. Thegreyanomaly (talk)

I have submitted the request to move the page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Low Carbohydrate Diets

Thanks for the message on my talk page.

I think that your edits are in the main fine although I think you are slightly 'too lenient' on LC diets.

Particularly your intro paragraph to "Major Governmental and Medical Organizations" doesn't really reflect your summaries. Many of them voice outright opposition.

4 or 5 opposition, 2 or 3 no real opinion, plus the ADA..

...the American Diabetes Association "Nevertheless this is arguably the first endorsement, albeit for the short-term, by a major medical organization" is not how I read what the ADA says at all. They simply state that it *may* be effective for *weight loss*. This is not an endorsement. 'Arguably' here is a weasel word.

I think you need to be clearer on how effective they are for actual weight loss. From what I can see no studies have shown that they are effective for weight loss - or no more effective than other diets. I feel a general summary should have

• long term effect unknown
• appear to be safe for short term
• Major Governmental and Medical Organizations generally oppose, never truly endorse while stating that weight loss is no better anyway
• not shown to be more effective for weight loss

Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. Thank for your efforts. Macgruder (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the ADA says, and quoted from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801106.html

""The risks of overweight and obesity are well-known. We recognize that people are looking for realistic ways to lose weight," Ann Albright, president of health care and education for the ADA, said in a prepared statement. "The evidence is clear that both low-carbohydrate and low-fat calorie restricted diets result in similar weight loss at one year. We're not endorsing either of these weight-loss plans over any other method of losing weight. What we want health-care providers to know is that it's important for patients to choose a plan that works for them, and that the health-care team support their patients' weight-loss efforts and provide appropriate monitoring of patients' health.""

This is not an endorsement. It is rather simply saying that diabetes patients (and their physicians) can consider such a diet. You can't use the word endorsement when Ann Albright of the ADA has specifically said "not endorsing".

Unfortunately, the other 'endorsement' is not a credible source. I can't read Swedish so we need to take care what someone writes on a blog.

I understand that some studies have shown advantages in weight loss, but many of these were not statistically significant or were no longer there by the end of the study. The overall consensus seems to be that low-carb doesn't confer weight-loss benefits, and if it does it's fairly minimal. A non-significant difference is scientifically no difference.

Once again, I'll leave it up to you. I'm not overly concerned with this article. More, I don't want it to revert to the overly promotional state that it was in times past.

Thanks, Macgruder (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By consensus, I kind of meant there was a consensus that nothing conclusive had been shown ! When there is a lack of concensus it means in a sense that the case has not been proved, i.e. there is no statistical evidence to show that Atkins is better than other diets. I think it is fine to say that. The onus is on the 'pro' LC group to show that their diet is significantly better than other diets. This has not happened, and this is what is required scientifically. So a 'LC has not been shown to be statistically better or worse than other diets regarding weight-loss' is fine, or something similar. To me the scientific consensus seems to be that LC is comparable to other diets over one year for weight loss. Most studies show small or on differences. However, many of the studies do say that the long term effects are unknown (and possibly dangerous - reflecting much government medical advice).

Once again as long as we stick to this, it seems no better/worse and the long term is unknown, I think that this is fine. Early versions of these articles tended to 'promote' the Atkins metabolic advantage which was basically marketing propaganda. The problem with these articles is that at present there are not enough people actively contributing, and thus bias creeps in. You seem to be keen to get the balance right so that's fine as far as I'm concerned. I only started contributing to them because when I first read them it was like reading an advertisement for Atkins and there seemed to be very little understanding of how scientific process works regarding statistics. Things are better now. I'll just pop by occasionally and let you know if I think things need to be changed. Macgruder (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_Nutritional_Approach scientific studies section, which is uniformly terrible. It has no structure, random order, a cherry picked study to lead in, and various references to science writers etc which are on the whole irrelevant. Perhaps you could reduce it to a short intro and link to your LC study page.

Your LC scientific summary looks good to me. Good work. Macgruder (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

I've replied to your concerns and think I have got a solution. Colin°^Talk 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Flamarande

I'm going to assume that you are resting or sleeping. I've made a proposal. Take a look, if you don't agree write your proposal below. We will continue tomorrow. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you can't be sleeping again. Flamarande (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Low carb diet

I added some stuff on low carb diets to the page on obesity. I am currently reading an excellent book on the subject aswell.

Kolata, Gina (2007). Rethinking Thin: The new science of weight loss - and the myths and realities of dieting. Picador. ISBN 0-312-42785-9.

Gina Kolata

Very well written. Had lots of fascinating details about the history of low card diets. These ideas were around long before Atkins.

Still slowly working on improving the page on obesity.

--Doc James (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Still reading the book and it is a great read. My take of the literature is that none of the diets come out any better then the others in trials. Obesity is an exceedingly important topic which seems to have an easy solution which turn out to be not so easy. When it comes to diets and the low carb diet in particular everything seems to have been tried. Diets fail and disappears for a while and then comes back again. I think Atkins is the third time low card has been popular.

--Doc James (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Another great source is uptodate. They have an indepth article on diets. If you need access send me your email and I can give you a free month subscription.

http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/topic.do?topicKey=obesity/4904#12 Doc James (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I need an email address to send you the page and access codes that will work for a month. Doc James (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus and transliteration

Hello. I have responded to your comment on the talk page for the above article. Robin S (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Latin

What I meant was, it is possible for people to use two different orthographies, even two different dialects or languages - it doesn't change the fact that they can transcribe from one to the other. But this is a tangent and I defer, totally, to your knowledge of classical and medieval Latin, and also agree in principle with your point about using jargon carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

shark

Thank you for fixing the reference tag in this article. I was doing it when there was an edit conflict. Chergles (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles on 'Islamic' inventions

Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times. Now the issue is up again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world] Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets

An article that you have been involved in editing, Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets. Thank you. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Barbarians

Hey man. You have contributed to the article Bureau of Barbarians. Essentially, there is no factual or textual evidence AT ALL that there was ever a formalised spying bureau in Byzantium. There was a Bureau mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum of the fifth century [see Otto Seeck, Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae Laterculi Prouinciarum (Berlin, Apud Weidmannos 1876) pp 31-33.] But no mentions in any text after this point. So, unless you can dazzle me with some evidence substantiating you calling the bureau the "world's first intelligence agency", I think you are peddling fantasy. Varangian (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Barbarians fact vs. fiction

Okay, apologies for coming across as harsh, I shouldn't have been, and you ought to be commended for doing some reading and putting the links: this is far better than most people do. Still, your sources are not just weak but tenuous to the extreme. It is not that I am pushing a POV, but rather that I am writing to the existing evidence. One must not take things further than the evidence bears no matter how nifty an alternative might seem. All the best, Varangian (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Barbarians III=

Well, one cannot prove a negative: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, so you are right to say that one can not be absolute when saying the Bureau was not an espionage agency. Yet, the converse is that lack of evidence does not prove conspiracy. I think between Constantine and me we do not say defintely they were NOT, only noting that there is a lack of evidence to prove that it was, noting the weakness of the opposing argument, and suggesting the Agentes in rebus as a more likely, but still unlikely, candidate for the position. We do note the Bureau's intelligence (not espionage) function. And if you look, you'll it IS original research: we are quoting all the relevant and exisiting primary sources: Procopius, Theophanes, the Theodosian & Justinian Codes, and the main edited secondary texts by Bury, JP Migne, Khazdan, Brehier, etc. Our arguments are on firm evidenciary footings. KC Gustafson (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Right Then...

"The Bureau was clearly (to varying degrees) engaged in deliberate efforts to gain intelligence from and manipulate foreign assets and dignataries for the purpose of state security. "

Prove it. KC Gustafson (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bulbophyllum abbreviatum

An article that you have expressed concern about, Bulbophyllum abbreviatum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum abbreviatum. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Galveston Bay Area

Hi. I noticed you've put a lot of work into expanding the Galveston Bay Area article. With so much of the content borrowed from Greater Houston or linking back to articles specifically about Houston (climate, geography etc), I am concerned there may not be sufficient information unique to the article to allow it to stand on its own (ie: someone will come along and suggest it be merged into a section of Greater Houston). Maybe some more Galveston Bay Area specific RS information should be introduced. Just my two cents. Thanks again for all the work you've put into the article. Cheers! --~~

• I must add that if you have sources that identify the "Galveston Bay Area" as a distinct region that is different from Greater Houston, the article could be kept. Otherwise it should be merged into Greater Houston. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• While there are places where there is some redundancy, what Nsaum was saying was that the content of Greater Houston is almost the same as the content in the Galveston Bay Area article. Because of the way the Galveston Bay Area article was expanded, we feel that it is a redundant article. If you had expanded it with different content, and with sourcing that identifies the Galveston Bay Area as an area distinct from Greater Houston, then it would not be a redundant article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's not a matter of who wrote the article. It's a matter of how the article stands now. Maybe people didn't say these things in the past, but that doesn't mean one cannot speak up about a certain article later. Also, merging is not deleting. Wikipedia:Merging describes "Duplicate" and "Overlap" as a reason to merge. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• 1. The way the article is evolving, "Galveston Bay Area" is seeming to be synonymous with "Greater Houston" or it can be an aspect which can be covered in "Greater Houston" - Wikipedia:Merge says "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." - If the "Galveston Bay Area" concept is too similar to "Greater Houston" then it can be merged as a sub-concept
• 2. You are welcome to go ahead and improve the article as of right now. Typically a contested merge process will involve a discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure your latest additions to the Galveston Bay Article help to improve it as a stand alone article. You seem to be taking information from the Texas wikipedia article. If this article is going to stand alone, it needs to include RS information that specifically mentions the Galveston Bay Area. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey. A good place to start, when looking for third party reliable sources that specifically mention the "Galveston Bay Area", might be here, the Houston Chronicle archives. You can search using specific keywords, in all editions dating back to January 1985 -- for free! The Handbook of Texas is also another good source (which I see you've already used in the references). They are pretty well respected sources for local Texas articles. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I based my change of the article upon the text specifically given in the citation you had listed; We must be careful to only include solid information specifically given in the cited material, not conclusions reached upon what a source says, even if we personally know it to be true; Unfortunately, this article contains a number of instances in which information presented is based upon conclusions made from information presented in the source (WP:OR). The information regarding Texas City's port activities immediately after the storm are not very clear in that specific source you cited (ie: no dates given). May I suggest checking out the Texas City entry at the Handbook of Texas, which mentions, among other things, the establishment of the first oil refinery in 1908 and other development at the port. Furthermore, this article has been in a great amount of flux lately, it is impossible to bring each and every issue to the TALK page, especially minor issues such as this. However, I am glad you brought your concern to my attention. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition with the Texas City Library info!! Glad you found it and added it! --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1 The source mentions oil (and oil-related businesses) in the same segment it mentions cotton, figs and other products, therefore I included it.

2 I struck "young" as unnecessary prose.

3 The only mention of Harrisburg in the two sources you listed for the port section (Baytown & Pasadena Handbook articles) was the "Harrisburg Common School District". Those sources did not mention Harrisburg in any relation to port business or development.

When writing an article, details are important. Generalizations and conclusions made from information presented in sources is WP:OR. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Karanacs did respond to your comment, but on her talk page. tell her thanks for me. Oldag07 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mcorazao. You have new messages at Oldag07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh yea. just an encouraging reminder. . . . There is no deadline on wikipedia Oldag07 (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify

Hello, when I first looked at the article it appeared that "History" was the only unique section with the other sections partially coming from other articles. I suggested that we keep the history section only, expand it and rename the article to something like "History of the Galveston Bay area". You've expanded the article with unique content related to the area, so I recommend that the article not be merged with Greater Houston. Of course, other editors may disagree. Anyway, keep up the great work! Postoak (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed some prose, potential WP:OR and unsourced/duplicated statements; although additional work is needed. Thanks for your continued help to improve and expand this article. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear optimism...

Hi, I responded on the article talk page. I apologize. My tagging was overly zealous and my criticism was misdirected.Katana0182 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tavuk göğsü

I reverted your claims about blangmange being spawned from tavuk göğsü. The article that you cited says nothing explicit about tavuk göğsü inspiring the "white dish". As a general news article about modern cuisine, it would also be a somewhat dubious source for statements about culinary history. I don't know if Claudia Roden or the Coes have anything to say about this, but if they do, it should be sourced to them, rather than a tertiary source.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at solving the problem, but the problem clearly remains. Neither Humes nor Coe make any claims about how the whitedish and tavuk göğsü are related. They simply state that they are identical and that one has changed while the other is still eaten. Nothing else. I think it's undeniable that the two dishes share a common origin, and this may in turn go back far into the mists of culinary history, but that's not what these writers say. If you write that they suggest this type of specific relation between the two dishes you're making an interpretations, which is clearly original research. (Add to that you also added an unreferenced claimed of tavuk göğsü being of Roman origin.) All of this also pretty much contradicts Hieatt, the one source that actually discusses this issue in depth based on analysis of primary sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I looked closer at the tavuk göğsü article and I saw the reference to Basan concerning the Roman origins. However, this is a cookbook, which is often a rather unreliable source for historical information. The statement about Roman origins is not just unreferenced, but intentionally vaguely worded ("Probably originally a dish of the Romans"). The book does have a bibliography, but even if it did show up in Google Books, it would be very difficult to trace the claim.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "Romania" in the lead of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire article

There are a some users who want to remove the mention of "Romania" as one of the empire's names from the lead of the article "Byzantine Empire" (and currently the article has been protected without its mention), despite the fact that there were enough sources (some published by the Oxford University Press([2]) and Cambridge University Press([3][4]) and others shown on the talk page) which support its mention, and it was also in the lead of the article for nearly two years. Since, you have knowledge about this topic, you could give a look on this debate, at least if you have time. The debate takes place at Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Mention_of_.22Romania.22_in_the_lead and Talk:Byzantine_Empire#section_break. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Galveston Bay area

I wasn't ignoring you, I promise! I just noticed that you had replied on my talk page. I've left a list of potential sources there. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your frustration is understandable. As I posted on the GB article this time article. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1924492,00.html Oldag07 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao: FYI, I have responded to your comment on my talk page. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mcorazao, I responded at WikiProject Houston's talk page. I believe a request for comment at WP:RFC might be of help. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be returning to the Galveston Area this week; if you can think of any photos that might be useful for the GBA and/or West Ranch articles, let me know. I may have already have some photos that are relevant, and if not, I can try to get take some. I travel between the Clear Lake City area and Galveston several days a week, so its not really out of my way. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

James Marion West Jr.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Marion West Jr., and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: James Marion West. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Galveston

Thank you, I really appreciate your suggestions and will incorporate them into the article. Hopefully the article will pass WP:GA review soon. Thanks again, Postoak (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vice in Galveston, agreed - we need to add a crime section to the article, what I would like to do besides including the standard statistics is to include the historic crime, vice, etc. in this section. What do you think? or should the historic crime be located in the history section? Thanks again, Postoak (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

and BTW, I know you're busy with GBA, but please feel free to help out on Galveston if you have the time! Thanks, Postoak (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to take a second to tell you that I've been watching the development of Free State of Galveston and wanted to commend you on all your hard work. — e. ripley\^talk 16:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Free State of Galveston

The gambling rating is more of a quick look. Anything higher needs either a review or a point by point assessment that some criteria is meet. Generally I will not rate something as a B on my own since grammar is one of the items that needs to be reviewed and that is not my strong suit. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I came across these while digging up info for another article I'm working on... Anyhow I thought you might find them interesting. [5] & [6]...tengan un buen fin de semana. --Nsaum75 (talk)

Free State of Galveston

Hi there -- no trouble at all. I agree that it's not ideal to have an article about the two of them together. Instead, perhaps Maceo family? Then have the individual members be a redirect there. Of course you still have to sort out what logically belongs where between that and Free State, to try to reduce the possibility of redundancies. But from a process standpoint, I think that makes the most sense. — e. ripley\^talk 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Seawall Blvd

Good question, apparently so. I thought that the name was changed when the seawall was built but this postcard (c. 1943) still uses the old name. I will see if I can find a reference. Please continue to proofread the article if you have the time, appreciate your help. Thanks! Postoak (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Las Vegas, Nevada history

The main article is History of Las Vegas I think most of what you have been adding belongs there. I guess it is time to cleanup up the summary in the city article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Norris Wright Cuney

Nice (and speedy) work! Thanks! --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Stats

Some interesting stats on prostitution during the "Open Era" at the bottom of this article [7] --Nsaum75 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Trees

Thought I would share this with you, since you've put so much work into Galveston, Texas-related articles. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Free State PR questions

(1) I'd never encountered the Texas template before. It seems to work and in some ways seems to parallel other shortcut templates like ones I've seen for GNIS references and references to the U.S. census web site. In articles to which I'm the main contributor, I like to add the missing data to the references even when I use short-cut templates, but it's possible that no one will object to what you've done. (2) I wouldn't use an image that I thought violated copyright law even if nobody on Wikipedia or at the Commons had yet noticed a problem. If I wanted to use the image, I'd try first to sort out the licensing problem, and if I couldn't do that, I'd look for another image. Finetooth (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all done unless you have specific questions. I enjoyed the article, and I wish you the best with the pursuit of GA. Finetooth (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing

Hello, GalvezHotelGalveston.jpg has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, there should be no problems at all. Images are checked when they are moved from Wikipedia to commons by bot; this one wasn't. I just completed the check which removed "check bot transfer" message.

The postcard (BeachBoulevardGalvestonPostcard.jpg) is in the public domain because it does not have a copyright mark. Comment -> Note: Flickr intermediate source tagged as Creative Commons, but as mechanical reproduction of material printed in the US without copyright notice pre-1960s, image is public domain per US law. The link provided is dead, maybe we should ask the original uploader to correct this. Postoak (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the postcard image above. Looks like User:Infrogmation updated the license page with additional information. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Galveston Bay Area

Thank you for your explanation. As a non-involved editor I will look at the article and determine whether there is any merit in the banners. If this is not the case I will proceed with the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. It seems that after you left me the note, RJN reverted his actions[8] and removed the citations template.

Let me see if I can bring and RfC on the article talk page and get a discussion going. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood, just trying to cover all bases. RfC is sometimes more effective for hashing out disagreements between sides/editors etc...especially if editors have disagreements with the peer review. --Nsaum75 (talk)

Re: Here[9]; Well, it's what type of bias that I'm wondering about. For the most part, articles that are informational with appropriate citations are not subject to notability objections (per definition of populated area consensus). Having looked a little farther, I would think a POV issue or bias would have been far more likely brought up for related articles such as specific histories of now-defunct government organization of the area such as the Free State of Galveston article. I'll leave a note on the editor of the POV objection and ask for more details when I have a chance later today.

It seems you've agreed to not do any further edits so at least there's no fuss about needing any sort of protection on the article itself. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Galveston, Texas

The history section was a bit too long per GA reviewer. I created subarticle History of Galveston, Texas and copied directly from Galveston's history section which was trimmed and condensed. Please review and revise. I might have removed some content that is important. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Galveston, Texas is a GA

		The Original Barnstar
		For your editing efforts that helped advance Galveston, Texas to good article status. Thank you! Postoak (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you one too:

To User:Mcorazao for your work on Galveston, Texas to get it to GA standards WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work

Nice job on Texas oil boom; I've been enjoying watching the article grow. I've written some articles on Texas oil fields (Yates Oil Field, Spraberry Trend, East Texas Oil Field) -- let me know if you ever need any help, another pair of eyes, or especially if you ever find a source that gives good information on more specific fields. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

GBA

Nah, leave it in and thanks for the explanation. Personally, I never call the area "Bay Area Houston". Googling the term always resulted with the economic partnership first. i was concerned that readers might think the article was promoting the partnership, but I do see it mentioned in other areas as you mentioned. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review for Commercial Revolution

Thanks for your input! I'm making your suggested changes. How do I respond to particular points? For example, the low quality primary source from the high school teacher is how I got some of the major organization of the article, and ideas on what to put. Where would I put that instead? Or how do I cite that? Hires an editor (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mcorazao. You have new messages at Jujutacular's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GBA follow-up

RJN, I REALLY appreciate your efforts here. This is a great show of good faith and I was not expecting it. For the first time since this all started I feel that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. You deserve congratulations for going the extra mile to be accomodating (and perhaps I deserve to be flogged for being so harsh). Let me review where things stand and we can discuss more later. Thanks again. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad we were able to have a dialogue on the article's talk page and thanks for the note. —RJN (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So let me propose how we move forward. Obviously there are still some signficant disagreements between us but I'm hoping we are building enough trust now that we can move to a collaborative effort.

• There are some issues that you have mentioned that I had a long time ago tried to get input on to build consensus. Unfortunately when I tried to solicit input I got none. I'd like to try again and settle these questions once and for all (i.e. it is not constructive to keep rehashing the same issues).
• For some of the other issues of phrasing I'd like to suggest that I go ahead and just try to adjust your edits in the article. You can, of course, feel free to re-edit as you see fit.

Reasonable?

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds very reasonable. I was a bit concerned that you have not been editing the article recently. —RJN (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is to inform you that I am working on a response on the article's talk page about a couple of things and will be posted in a little bit. —RJN (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mad?

No, not at all. I was paged over a customer issue, I had to go make them warm and happy. Postoak (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It did sound like I was pissed, sorry about that! Postoak (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to leave you (Mcorazao) a {{TalkBack}} notice, but I see your inquiry has been addressed :) Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

James Marion West Sr.

Not sure if you have seen this...but I thought the photos were interesting. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

GBA

Hi, yes, you have my support with the name "Galveston Bay Area" and "Bay Area". Thanks, Postoak (talk)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		To Mcorazao, for excellent work expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Texas-related topics! Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Mcorazao by Karanacs (talk) on 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you aren't working on the Republic of Texas-era articles, but I thought this appropriate nonetheless. It's nice to see so many new articles created on Texas history! For a while I've been the only one...now I'm not so lonely ;) Karanacs (talk)

Seconded. Good work! Mahanga^Talk 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bay Area

It seems like the dust has settled on the talk page. Just continue to edit boldly with your best intentions and discuss with other editors as needed. The details of the situation seem unfamiliar to me and unfortunately, I don't have much free time to gather all the pertinent information. However, I'll add it to my watchlist and peek in on it from time to time and suggest improvements. Cheers Mahanga^Talk 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best editor to advice you on that since I tend to back away from controversial topics. I think that's the nature of editing such articles in that you have to discuss outstanding issues for days or even weeks before you can get back to editing the content of the article. Mahanga^Talk 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

GBA

Thanks for the heads up; It looks like the Houston/Clear Lake City debate was closed before I got there. I'll look at the other ones and make comments when I get a chance.

Cheers! --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 09:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear Lake region

Thank you for expanding it! I'll take a closer look at the article at a later point WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's perfectly fine to make clear that you are using a particular organization's definitions of the area boundaries WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste moves

Please do not move pages by copying and pasting the content as with The Beach Hotel --> Beach Hotel (Galveston), Beach Hotel --> Beach Hotel (Sydney); and Clear Lake --> Clear Lake (California). Under terms of the license Wikipedia uses, it is important to keep the edit history with the associated pages and copy and paste moves disrupt that connection. Please use the Move function to move a page with the edit history intact. If you are not able to move a page (perhaps because an admin is needed for particular moves) or if the move might be controversial, please follow the instructions at WP:Requested moves. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)