User talk:Akhilleus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 six seven (May 2007) eight (June 2007) nine (July 2007) ten (Aug 2007) eleven (Sept 2007) twelve (Oct 2007) thirteen (Nov 2007) fourteen (Dec 2007-Feb 2008) fifteen (Mar 2008)

Contents 1 RFA thanks 2 Copyright violation???? and request for mediation 3 Need help 4 I agree 5 Elgin Marbles 6 Homer 7 an assumption of bad faith

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation???? and request for mediation

I showed an official reference instead they made edits without references-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan reference number 30 is not official but it comes from a fan page which means they made unsourced editions several times. This is not a copyright violation??????-URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg These scans were provided by myself why insist to keep them in the discussion page??? I am working in citizendium too. Can you help me and warn these vandals * User:Prede * User:Lord Sesshomaru can i add my official sources in the references of this page????http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan --Saxnot (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)--Saxnot (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

[edit] Need help

I've been accused of sockpuppetry. Can you please look into this & help clear my name? Thanks --AI009 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

...with you. And I didn't come to this thought just today, but today's nonsense confirmed it for me. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elgin Marbles

Some very interesting points you made there. Please do provide some citations. I would be very interested to see what exactly you have in mind. I would prefer inline citations if that is possible because so far I have seen mainly general references to books or unsubstantiated newspaper statemenents. I am looking forward to your response and thanks again--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homer

Hi Akhilleus, the problem you face in your article about Homer is that you can find someone who thinks anything about Homer. It is fine to explain that there are a diversity of views, but for example to include Greg Nagy in your list of important Homeric scholars, while excluding Egbert Bakker, Stephanie West, Mark Edwards and a dozen others doesn't look very balanced. I do not know of a single Homeric scholar who agrees with Nagy's theory of a "crystallization of the text," though from his position at Harvard and at the Hellenic Center he does exert influence. It makes it look as though you are a partisan and not an impartial assessor of consensus views in Homeric studies. See what I mean?

In Homeric studies, as in all others, what matters is evidence, facts, and conclusions based on them. I know one author who thinks that Troy is located in Scotland ... Just thinking something doesn't make it true, or worthy of representation in an article on the most important author in the Western tradition, one that at present is in a very poor condition.wakan (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the second person ("your article") implies either a false notion of Akhilleus as someone who thinks he owns the article, or a notion of yourself as someone so clearly defined against Wikipedia editors ("you Wikipedians" have a problem; I can straighten you out) that it calls into question whether you're the right person to make edits purporting to serve the encyclopedia's goal (as uninspiring as it may seem to someone with a special grasp on evidence and facts) of retailing bland consensus. The comparison of Nagy to crackpots looks like fringe ranting, maybe personal animus. No one is claiming the other scholars Wakan names are insignificant, but Nagy's greater prominence than them in Homeric scholarship is a mainstream Classics reality. Wareh (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus, I shouldn't be arguing with you because we are going to get nowhere. A neutral point of view places creationism on a par with evolutionary theory, doesn't it? Some know more about Homer than others, but surely there is a consensus, for example, that the Peisistratean Recension was an invention of Friedrich August Wolf and that, on the evidence, no recension took place in Athens under Peisistratus. M. L. West (and his wife) is a great and towering scholar, but he can be wrong, for example in thinking that Hesiod is older than Homer. Maybe he is, but no one else thinks so, including myself. He thinks that Homer held a pen in his hand and wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, but followers of Parry/Lord like Richard Janko are sure that the texts were dictated, as Milman Parry and Albert Lord argued emphatically and repeatedly. You can never find yourself through the forest of Homeric studies without a theoretical frame built of all we know about archaic life, literacy, and oral tradition. To just say, "Oh, they got papyrus from Psamettichus, it was expensive before," is based on no evidence. It is just a guess. But you have to know a lot to know that. Where there is controversy, this should be made clear, but the problem with this article is that it is not made clear and many things are said that are unsupported by fact or theory. "Some say, because ... but others say, because ... Most agree with the second view, because ..." not "So-and-so says such and such." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakantanka (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Akhilleus, what's this stuff about "vandalism" quoted at the bottom of my talk page? I fixed some minor incacuracies in another article (including one it itself refuted), but somebody reverted them as vandalism! Wha? Get a job?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakantanka (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written an administrator about the situation with the Linear B article. I am happy to do some work on the Homer article in line with our conversation. I can start with the knotty problem of date. I gather that you will be looking this over ... does this sound like a plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakantanka (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] an assumption of bad faith

Hi DreamGuy,

This last part of this comment appears to contain an assumption of bad faith, in that you allege (unnamed) editors aren't trying to create a neutral article but are trying to "savage" the Jesus Myth theory. The discussion on the talk page should provide ample evidence that editors are trying to create an NPOV article; they have a different idea of what NPOV means in this circumstance than you do. Could you please consider rephrasing your comment, so that it doesn't assume bad faith on the part of other editors? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As already explained to you (on this talk page, which you seem to have deleted for some reason...), people can be biased and be completely unconscious about it. It's only bad faith if they are biased, know they are biased, and still push their bias. Most biased people are incapable of acknowledging their bias, and operate in good faith while still lashing out at opinions they don't agree with. My pointing out that people are savaging an article with bias is not an accusation of bad faith, it's meant as a wake up call to some pretty severe bias filling an article.

And, again, it's absolutely absurd for you to try to preach against assuming bad faith while at the same time assuming that my actions assume bad faith. Stop making unwarranted assumptions, ESPECIALLY while making accusations that other people are assuming things. This is just tedious. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. You say: "The whole slant of this article right now isn't trying to cover the topic objectively, it's try to savage the idea. And we can certainly see that intent in the comments of posters here on the talk page and in edit comments." In other words, "some editors" (I wonder who?) intend to savage the JM hypothesis, and don't try to cover the topic objectively. And you say this isn't an assumption of bad faith, because the editors are "completely unconscious" of their bias? Give me a break. What's more, saying that some editors "are incapable of acknowledging their bias" is a personal attack.

If you disagree with me, don't waste both of our time by replying to this. Furthermore, I'm not going to waste your time by bringing stuff like this to your attention on your talk page anymore--instead, I'll post on WP:AE. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)