User talk:SimonP/Archive 6

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Indian military history	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	08 Jun 2025	22 Jun 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae	Motion	none	20 May 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew

I've removed your 'ignore this discussion' comment from this page for what should be obvious reasons. The standard processes were followed here, the entire community was given a fair chance to say their piece, and, if you read the actual discussion, the consensus was VERY clear. Like it or not, until another discussion says different, that page should be considered an official guideline. --InShaneee 18:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's been established that wikipedia policy can change over time and thus, as long as a clear consensus can be reached, the most current discussion should be considered the most relevant, and the only one to be used as a guideline. Secondly, this discussion was hardly clandestine, as it was posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for weeks, which also means that any visitor to AfD could take a look at it. Incidentally, this is how I came across it, not because of any sort of advertisement. I have not removed your text again yet, but unless I hear a compelling argument, I plan to soon. --InShaneee 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking around to see what's been going on, I hope you forgive me for saying that I don't believe you may be acting in good faith here yourself. Without getting dragged into this mess myself, the long and short of it is simply that you were quite recently involved in a dispute with -Ril-. Also, it sounds ("He would also have contacted those who actually worked in the area") that you certainly have a vested interest in the topic as well (and for the last time, I don't CARE one way or the other on the topic, and I came across this on AfD as I'm sure others did). So, I'm still planning on removing that statement, but I would like to hear from someone not involved in all of this. I'll look into it on my own if you don't in the next few days. --InShaneee 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing my point. Now that this discussion is over, speedy reverting any such changes would be the innapropriate thing to do. Either way, I'm passing this issue off for a third opinion, but I still am going to recommend that the comment be removed. The bottom line remains: this discussion was put out for the whole community, and the results are plain to see. --InShaneee 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 1993 Canadian election article

Hi, I was wondering which edition of Canadian Democracy by Stephen Brooks you used for the article Canadian federal election, 1993. I have the 3rd edition (published in 2000), but my page numbers don't sync up. Thanks, please leave an answer on my talk page. Andrew Levine 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

I know that both the -ize and -ise spellings are used, but according to the Wikipedia MoS, the spelling of proper names should be retained. This applies to the British Labour Party, but also to the World Trade Organization (z) and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (s). There are style guides that don't see organisation as a proper name, but this is a matter of perception. The Wikipedia guideline is very clear. NATO is officially spelled with 's', the organization even explains this policy on its website. SpNeo 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO itself freely uses both. If you search the NATO website you actually get more hits for "z" than you do for "s". - SimonP 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the search results link to US-related NATO documents. If you look at the press releases, the "About"-section, the charter... you'll find that organisation is used consistently. SpNeo 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right about the fact that both spellings are considered official by the organization. I'll stop changing the spelling in articles where -ize is used. But I'd still say that the -ise spelling is the preferred one. If you have a look at the main page at [1], you'll see that it's used in the title and all the sections of the website that are easily accessible. I guess it's NATO's house style to use organisation for the public and organisation or organization in internal documents and treaties. In the FAQ section, it says:

By tradition, NATO uses European English spellings in all public information documents. Common examples where differences occur between European and North American usage are the words “defence” and “defense”, and “Organisation” and “Organization”.

They are not quite right about that though, organization can also be used in Commonwealth English.SpNeo 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League template

Hi, then why did some countries such as Jordan and Tunisia already have the template to begin with? Some of the countries already had the template on there, so I figured I should add it to the rest of the Arab League nations to be consistent.

Also, why is the Gulf Cooperation Council template allowed but the Arab League template is not? This is double standards.

Thanks (MEA707 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Arbitration case

I've opened a new arbitration case against you. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Simon, an editor has been changing the order of the results of an election in riding article from the current standard (ordered by the number of votes the candidates received) to alphabetical order. I think we should develop a consensus. Given your past interest in these articles, your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Election results. Ground Zero | t 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi SimonP/Archive 6, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

with your unfortunate arbitration case. The problem here is that there are three camps: people who have no problem with the articles, the mergists (who I have no problem with, though the merges will almost certainly have to be reversed in time), and the deletionists. And unfortunately some of the mergists have come under the misimpression that -Ril- is leading a campaign to merge bible verses. e.g. here. You'd think his six or seven attempts to delete all of them wholesale would clue them in. Anyway, best of luck and don't get too frustrated. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon: This is a minor point really, but I do think you should recuse yourself from arbitrating in a case against yourself. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Exactly how scholarly or amateur are those references you use for your Bible verse articles?

The article for 6:2 says:

There is no evidence that the Pharisees, and others seen as hypocrites, actually blew upon trumpets to publicize their giving, and Fowler feels it is unlikely they would have been so brazen. Lewis thinks the reference might be to the autumn public fasts, which would have been accompanied by the blowing of horns. Schweizer speculates that when the list of donors were read off in the Temple that especially large ones may have been accompanied by horns. Hendriksen thinks it unlikely that this would have been allowed. The expression "toot your own horn" for self-praise likely derives from this verse.

I've done a tiny tiny bit of googling on this and found out that:

trumpet is the word that the Talmud uses to refer to alms-boxes. In fact, the 13 alms-boxes in the Jewish Temple were shaped like trumpets (Sheḳ. v. 1 and Yer. 49, 3; 50b. 'Er. 32a and Giṭ. 60b, c.f. Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews." xix. 61).

"Even the trumpet-shaped alms-holders seem to have been retained in the Church until the beginning of the fourth century, judging by the term conchœ"

"At any rate it is with an allusion to the trumpet-like form of the alms-box that Jesus said (Matt. vi. 2 et seq.)"

It's blatently used by Matthew as a deliberate parallel, and yet not one of your sources seems to mention it, if what you describe them as thinking is anything to go by. What they have come up with seems to be pure speculation - original research (on their part) if you will - and appears to have no basis in even the tiniest piece of academic research - I mean, how difficult is it to read the Talmud, or ask someone who has, or has done research on it, if you are an academic in the subject and really interested in finding out what the Jews did in regard to alms of the time? Especially when you consider that the information I found above is corroborated by some kind of famous Jewish public domain encyclopedia that's been around for decades.

And, while I'm asking questions, why are almost all of your sources Protestant? That hardly seems balanced to me. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. the expression is "blowing your own trumpet".

P.p.s.

You wrote (in the article):

"Fowler notes that some scholars argue that synagogue cannot here refer to the religious building, as charity was not distributed there"

This is the most stupid reasoning ever. Alms were collected at religious institutions, just as they are today all over the world. Of course it is referring to synagogues - its a reference to alms being collected in a synagogue - kind of absolutely totally obvious. Except maybe people whose reasoning is so clouded by religion that they are unable to accept that synagogues and charity could possibly go together. Do you know what they did with the alms that they collected? According to Josephus, the Talmud, and several other Jewish references (google can tell you a lot very quickly if you ignore all but the academic sources), they gave them out to synagogue schools to educate the poor. I.e. alms were distributed to synagogues - that was a major purpose of the alms - to educate the poor. So Fowler is doubly incompetant, and his/your use of "some scholars" seems like a weasly way to hide original research!!!!.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you go "Fowler/Albright/Bob/Dave/Alice thinks it means that people should X Y Z God A B C heaven", rather than "Protestants/Catholics/Whatever generally/officially/rarely think it means that people should X Y Z God A B C heaven" all the time? E.g. "The verse does not literally insist on pacifism" rather than "Although pacifists view the verse as being a clear indication that Jesus wished people to uphold strong and radical pacifism, others disagree". It strikes me that you are trying to assert a POV by selectively mentioning the viewpoints of commentators that agree with you or are straw men, and failing to mention the general views held by large religious groups on the matter. That's certainly one reason I can see for wanting to keep the articles split up into tiny verses so that there are thousands, rather than all in one noticable place that people can keep watch on. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]