User talk:Sowlos/Archives/2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am sure you have heard about this. So in case you actually want talk to me (as opposed to, idk, some sort of futile attempt annoying me?), you will appreciate that a litte courtesy will dramatically increase the probability I will assume you are being sincere. --

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Wicca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Denomination, Lineage, Motif, Godhead and Gerald Gardner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for signing on with WikiProject cleanup, and please feel free to post articles for clean-up there! Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that there was a proper article on the subject. The original text said "

Hi, thanks for the invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++. I've just added my name to the list. I'm not as active in wikipedia as I used to, but I'll manage to be around. -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That project is on life support and I hope to boost its numbers enough to get it running under its own power. C and C++ are too import important to modern computers to be unsupported on a digital encyclopedia. :)
—

Sowlos

19:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sowlos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Fstream, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this talk page should be retained to display the copy-paste notice, in case it should later be proposed to delete the redirect. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you continuing to monitor the move discussion at Talk:Aquila (Roman)? I've made some comments regarding your suggestion of legionary standard and thought I should let you know in case you weren't. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Good save. I missed that the discussion resumed.
—

Sowlos

09:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sowlos

Although I agree that my contribution was not the most useful of edits, I fail to see how the current statement is of any use, or even backed up by the source material. I find it rather far-fetched to think that "'hen' probably meant death", especially when the word "bane" is suffixed. Even the wiktionary link to 'hen' and 'henbane' mention nothing of 'hen' referring to 'death'. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hen. I would suggest maybe just removing this statement altogether, as it really doesn't add anything to the article and sounds rather ridiculous, as quoted below.

The origins of the word are unclear but "hen" probably originally meant death rather than referring to chickens.[6]

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.78.123 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source book at the moment, so I assume it supports the preceding statement. While "henbane" definitely sounds like hen's bane, etymologies aren't always simple. That is why we must cite sources. If you would like to correct the etymology, follow it with supporting citation(s) to

Sowlos

13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again

I managed to get a hold of the source material, and it seems that there are some indications that 'hen' could in fact be an old Germanic word for 'death'. So, I stand corrected.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.78.123 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have gathered together a few articles from reference books on wicca, and would be very happy to send them to you, like I just send them to Kim Dent-Brown. Unfortunately, you don't have e-mail enabled, so, if you would want to send me an e-mail containing your e-mail address, I could forward them to you as well. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. The e-mail feature should work now.  —

Sowlos

  09:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't seem to access your e-mail in the Toolbox, unfortunately. And sorry about the delay in responding. I'm doing a lot of things off-wiki which are hogging lots of hours. If you have reservations about allowing e-mail, feel free to send me one, and I can respond with the texts of the articles I found. There are a few more I know of and have checked, but they are often only a paragraph or two and not particularly useful on that basis. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. My preference page says "Your email address was authenticated on 1 April 2013 at 09:52." while

Sowlos

  19:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"No send address" probably means that you haven't authorized the system to indicate that the address you have listed is one which other editors can send e-mail to, I think. I still don't find the "e-mail this user" option in the toolbox, which indicates that the system still hasn't gotten the message to enable e-mail. When you go to the "Your preferences" link, do you have the box "Enable email from other users" checked? John Carter (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's checked. :/  —

Sowlos

  19:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! It's working now!
Since that box was checked before I added an e-mail address. I decided to uncheck it, save, recheck it, and save again. It seems the database doesn't propagate all account changes uniformly.  —

Sowlos

  19:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You should have the articles now. The first one is from the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion which I already added. Of the others, I think the Grimassi articles are probably the least reliable, as he isn't actually an academic source and seems to be the major proponent of some sort of Italian wicca, but the article on the questions regarding the word "wicca" itself might be useful, and he's almost certainly by our standards at least reliable enough to be used in articles. If and when we do add any material from those reference articles, we can check to see which sources in the bibliographies the material was gotten from. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sowlos, I wanted your opinion on the situation with

Hi, Huntster. I'm glad to help. I'm sure you saw the message I left on Ryder's talk page. My hope is that he is simply new and learning.
I just finished going through all the articles in his contribution list. (There weren't many, so it seemed doable.) He is definitely focused on discussing a few individuals wherever he can. I can understand the temptation to mass revert such seemingly spammy edits, but I did find some productive edits in there too:

• His edits at Acherontia atropos look fine.
• The content in his additions to Radley and Frilford also seem fine, but creating "notable residents" and "people" sections really should include mentions of multiple people. They don't seem notable enough to warrant there own sections in those articles. In my opinion, those sections should be expanded to cover other notable people or they should be removed.
• I considered reverting his mention of Gary Botting in Karlheinz Schreiber as an undue addition, but I left it alone. While some of Ryder's additions there could be seen as part of a larger POV editing campaign, it is properly cited and can be argued as relevant. I decided to leave the determination of relevance up to other editors considering how much I scrutinized his other edits.
• I'm unsure about Leonard Cheshire. Most of Ryder's edits look productive, but there is an unsourced addition in the private life section. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the subject's life.
• I removed the description of Gary Botting (and "Bill Smith") as "notable journalists" from
  WP:Primary sources
  .
• I reverted his recent edits to Gerald Gardner, Gardnerian Wicca, Edith Woodford-Grimes, Doreen Valiente. They were all somewhat problematic. Many were detailed accounts while lacking citation (well outside of
  WP:SKYISBLUE even for what's commonly known in the Pagan/Wiccan communities) and they all seemed to only serve the purpose of mentioning Lysbeth Turner
  .
• I removed "<ref>See
  WP:CITE
  on this issue.
• I don't know what should be done about the articles Lysbeth Turner, Heather Botting, Coven Celeste, and Gary Botting. He created each of them, save Gary Botting which he heavily modified. They need to be looked at from top to bottom and I haven't had a chance to do this.

 —

Sowlos

  23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

FP and myself have both replied to you. What's going on??? Really curious to see what your reply is! DeCausa (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You have your reply.  —

Sowlos

  15:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CE-HTML, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remote access (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

... answered on my talk page. Michael! (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

... continued. Michael! (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

... minor answers. Michael! (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence ...

What do you think of the

If you are referring to "The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages". I'm not outright opposed to it, but I'm concerned about removing "continuation" from the sentence. Just a few days ago, there was strong support for that single word. (A lot of people feel saying "the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire" is an over oversimplification.) I'd be uneasy removing it without consulting more of the participants who were involved at

Sowlos

  21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence. I was asking because it wouldn't be nice if it was not implemented because of lack of responses, as happened to a few other minor proposals.

"Predominantly Greek-speaking" is certainly important, but should it be in the opening sentence? It could also be moved to somewhere further on in the opening paragraph, to the second paragraph (which could be expanded into a nomenclature and language paragraph), or into the yet to be written new culture paragraph. Michael! (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Lack of silence leads to assumptions.
It doesn't have to be in the first sentence and it originally wasn't, but I think it should (i.e. not must) stay in the first paragraph. It was not only a core attribute, it was one of the few persistent qualities. That makes it a good fit for the first paragraph and possibly the third. At present, the first paragraph says what Byzantium was, the second explicitly notes the common names are "historiographical terms", the third discusses how the Empire split, the fourth discusses its breathing borders, and the fifth covers its death.  —

Sowlos

  21:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Involved

On Talk:Byzantine Empire since April 2013, in chronological order:

1. User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise
2. User talk:Dr.K.
3. User talk:DeCausa
4. User talk:Sowlos
5. User talk:Cynwolfe
6. User talk:Famartin
7. User talk:Cody7777777
8. User talk:Michael!
9. User talk:Lfdder
10. User talk:Srnec
11. User talk:Athenean
12. User talk:Laszlo Panaflex
13. User talk:DIREKTOR

Just in case you would like to invite them to come back (or if you're going to seek dispute resolution again ;)). Michael! (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, look what you posted right as I was typing we need more of the other editors involved!  —

Sowlos

  21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to steal your idea, if that's what you mean! Well, feel free to contact them. Michael! (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But all ideas on Wikipedia are Wikipedia's ideas! ;)
I've commented and notified all the prior editors (except for you, Cody7777777, and myself).  —

Sowlos

  22:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is being continued here.

By the way, the BE is of high importance to many Wikiprojects. Should they be notified as well? Michael! (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: "all the prior editors, (except for" ... You did notify "you, ... and myself", but why didn't you notify Cody, Dr. K, nor Athenean?

Woops. I thought I notified Dr. K. (I must have lost track of my browser tabs.) ...fixed.
I didn't notify Cody because he was already involved; he already responded to DIRECTOR's proposal. Nothing new to tell him. As for Athenean and the Wikiprojects: I only considered notifying people who took an interest in the previous drafting, but since have been MIA. My concern was people being unknowingly overruled shortly after they participated. If you think the others should be notified, feel free to do so.
Now that you've mentioned it, DIRECTOR's proposal does look significant enough to notify everyone.  —

Sowlos

  14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Demographics of atheism, he's back and I don't want to look like I'm pushing a POV because I did substantial requested work on the lede and sorted the sections but his edits got mixed with mine. Is there a way to just revert them all and block the ip permanently? Lycurgus (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe blanket reverts on a user or IP remove all interluding and following edits the set time span. That's part of the severe nature of blanket reverts. Whether someone manually removes all changes made by another or reapplies their own edits following a blanket revert, much manual work must be had.
If you are worried about appearing push a POV, you could bring your concern to the article (and/or relevant WikiProject) talk page. Consensus amongst several editors is a helpful thing to have. If you feel the disputed content is too intermingled with the rest to be clearly spotted, removing it all in one edit followed by an immediate revert of that edit is always an option. That would clearly highlight everything for other editors to scrutinize.
In any case, I think you may have me confused. I've never blocked anyone (nor am I even an admin). Although, some of my actions as a modest user have resulted in a few bannings. I've reverted a lot of vandalism, manually parsed articles to remove problematic content from single editors, notified the relevant editors, and in some cases reported editors on the noticeboards.  —

Sowlos

  13:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Research Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration
  is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and
  sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Religion for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paganism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme deity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am more than happy to lend a hand wherever possible. So, if you ever want my opinion on any edits or anything like that, just give me a bell. All the best, and good luck! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am bothering you right now, but I did not spam anything. If I am wanted to make a proposal to merge articles into one article, I always try to get the message across on both talk pages and see what they think. I have not violated any guidelines what so ever. This isn't the first time I have made such a proposal. I went to a Wikipedia Bureaucrat to get those threads reopened. I have not been trolling or spamming. In case if you do not know, I am a new user and have only begun to create my first article. Speaking of which, would you like to contribute to this new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_species_rumored/believed_to_still_be_alive ? Keeby101 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

... I did not spam anything.

You made a proposal; five minutes after you received opposition, you posted another on the same talk page with far more outlandish suggestions. You also crossposted at least one proposal. Rapid fire posting of contentious suggestions around controversial topics comes off very spammy and trollish.

... I always try to get the message across on both talk pages ...

Posting the proposal on one talk page and a notice on the other would be the more logical and more conventional approach. Hosting multiple parallel discussions on the same question is more disruptive than helpful. Moreover, when dealing with a contentious suggestion, it looks more like an attempt to spread around inflaming text.

I have not violated any guidelines what so ever.

Several editors appear to disagree.

This isn't the first time I have made such a proposal.

Making the same proposal repeatedly until it slips by is not a defensible course of action.

I went to a Wikipedia Bureaucrat to get those threads reopened.

This is beggining to look like canvassing.

In case if you do not know, I am a new user ...

I see. Unfortunately, ignorance will not necessarily protect you from hostile reactions to disruptive acts. If you really did not intend to spam trollishness, you must remember it is incumbent upon you to understand the situation you are entering and the effects of your actions. The relationship of the Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire is a controversial topic. Many nationalistic and ethnic biases play into the

historical revisionism

and vandalism the related articles have had to grapple with over the years. Also, your contentious posts appeared to have little logical underpinning (another trolling red-flag): How does listing Ottoman Empire as the Byzantine Empire's successor mean they should be merged into a single Roman Empire article? By that logic the Roman Kingdom and Republic articles should also be merged. And, what about the Republic of Turkey? It is the continuing legal personality of the Ottoman Empire. Under that logic, shouldn't it be merged into the Roman Empire super article? Even if they did all rightfully deserve representation as a single state, encyclopaedias have separate articles for a reason. One article just cannot cover everything. That's what parent and subarticles are for. Lastly, your suggestion would require completely ignoring centuries of establish academic understanding.

I find it hard to believe you were completely ignorant to all these issues, but if you were, you essentially kicked a hornets' nest. —

Sowlos 

18:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I want to say that I am sorry for being ignorant. I am a new user and you were right about be being ignorant and kicking the hornet's nest. With that being said, I decided to make my own article titled List of species rumored/believed to still be alive and I would like for you to contribute to it. It is a great article and truly interesting and actually has a lot of potential. You can give me your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive. Keeby101 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, no need for name calling. You were missing some facts, but that's life. ;) —

Sowlos 

11:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

the country's officially recognized name is F.Y.R.O.M. Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. That is the name the country is listed under the UN and that is the official name used in any international affair in which this country is involved. Their people can say they are called whatever they want, they can be called bananaland for all it matters and this may be a small notation on their wikipedia pages but the name mentioned in the title and in every official reference to this country is and should be F.Y.R.O.M. please respect the regulations of the united nations and the veto greece has put. I am changing the term back to F.Y.R.O.M. in Greece's page and this should be done in every reference of FYROM in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenazgullord (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1. "FYROM" is internationally recognized as a provisional name.
2. It is Wikipedia policy, not my decision, which overrules UN parlance. As such, your continued insertions of "F.Y.R.O.M."/"Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia" have been reverted by other editors than myself. You should have taken my advice and read WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia) rather than blindly editing.
3. Typing messages in all-caps doesn't encourage others to listen to you.

 —

Sowlos 

13:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

if the wikipedia is an organization that posts content according to a few members or employees of that organization and not according to what is correct then it should remove the term "-pedia" from its name and just be debased to a forum where a few ignorant uneducated people post what THEY think is true. if on the other hand wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA based on true and valid knowledge then it should conform to it when it is presented with it unless of course there are other interests behind all this fuss, like political and propagandistical ones in which case i will hazard a guess that Alexander the Great's page will soon be radically changed to fit this nation's far right ignorant propaganda. in any way as long as i can i will set things right as they are in real life and not based on what some idiots far un-involved with this matter think about. greetz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenazgullord (talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sowlos. Regarding your warning on my talk page, I do get frustrated sometimes, but I should have been more civil; you are right. However, you should also consider the following, since you only warned me:

You seem to have ignored "This is like an asylum taken over by a madman" [1], "By being insane of course", [2] and deletion of an entire paragraph that was reliably sourced [3] [4]. Also it seems Alexikoua followed me to Turkish people to undo my contributions, as this was his first edit there.[5]

I worked hard to get this article promoted to Good Article status (Talk:Turkish_people/GA1), now it is annoying that an entire paragraph was deleted with frivolous reasons. Cavann (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cavann. I'm glad you recognize that your reaction to the situation may have been too heavy.
You are—of course—right to look dimly upon someone insinuating that you're insane, and you are within your rights to call someone out for doing so. However, rather than responding with more incivility, you can remind such individuals to

comment on the content

. It's very easy to descend into a tit-for-tat argument, but the editors who stand in your way are also the people who need to agree with you before you can move forward.

On the article itself

I know what it's like when an article you've worked hard on appears to be getting trampled on. (I've had a few spirited arguments in such situations, myself.) But try to also see things from the other side: a large addition addition about Hittites in the Turkish people article can look very strange. An editor reviewing your edit can easily think "Why are Hittites here? Just because they were in Anatolia? They were there before the Turks! Sure some Turkish people might have Hittite ancestry, but if we're going to list the achievements of pre-Turkish people in Anatolia who may have been partialy incorporated into modern Turkey, what about the Greeks and Armenians? ...this is POV nonsense." Whether this view is right or wrong, you need to address it. You have clearly provided citations supporting your content, but those opposing your recent addition don't see the relevance (no matter how accurate it may be). Even if you convince the others, you may need to restructure the content to make its relevance more apparent to other readers. Also, even if you can successfully make the argument that Turkish people have enough Hittite heritage to be relevant, Wikipedia is still divided into multiple articles for a reason. You would more likely have to limit mention of the Hittites to how they contributed to modern Turkish heritage and simply let readers follow the wikilinks if they want to more about specifically Hittite achievements.

Whatever the case, nothing will happen without positive and civil discussion. Try to avoid saying things like It's weird you do not see... [whatever] unless someone is obviously, intentionally trying to hinder progress. If you point out what someone may be missing without using a critical tone, you'll find them more willing to try working with you.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me at any time. —

Sowlos 

05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sowlos. I don't think you have looked at the article. Info about Hittites is just one sentence in one subsection: "Hittites established the first Anatolian Empire, with their capital in Hattusa around 1800 BC" (14 words). And a map and its description. There are 5 subsections under history (2477 words). I should also say info about Greeks are already there: "After Alexander the Great's conquest, the area was Hellenized." And much more about Byzantines in other subsections (info about Greeks/Byzantines is way more than Hittites).[6] Please take a look at the article.

I welcome positive and civil discussion, but I do think someone is "intentionally trying to hinder progress". We are supposed to assume good faith, but I get frustrated when someone like Alexikoua, who got blocked so many times for edit warring in articles related to Greek nationalistic issues (i.e.: Greece's neighbours),[7] deleted an entire paragraph based on frivolous reasons (not to mention the potential harassment issue). That was why I said I was gonna report it at ANI. Cavann (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought of you (maybe you said something recently about stringing together footnotes?), but this takes the prize for "Most Footnotes I've Ever Seen in One Place". So absurd I had to share it with someone. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow.

Overkill

much? [Lol] —actually, I found worse. :p

Timeline_of_religion is on my list of articles to overhaul, mainly for the persistently inaccurate dating of archaeological finds. (People need to realise BP need not have a one-to-one relationship with BC.) Take a look at the "1972 – 2004" item in

Sowlos 

08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ho, 22 footnotes for a single statement must be a record. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It very well may be. I wonder if there is a way to check. —

Sowlos 

15:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just sticking this inquiry here because I see no reason to create a whole new section. That infobox matter you brought up … I would fix it, but you seem to remember better how it was constructed with the explanatory note. Are you interested in pursuing that? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting restoring the more comprehensive state of the native names section (all or in part) or are you suggesting use of the explanatory notes in some other way? —

Sowlos 

12:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation (to join the C/C++ group).

I went to the page at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_C/C%2B%2B" and found that my user name ("Tripodics") has already been added to the list. (If you added it, then I thank you.)

What do I do next, to participate?

Tripodics (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [email protected]